edited by david r. abbott and katherine a. spielmann · david r. abbott and katherine a. spielmann...

Alliance and Landscape on Perry Mesa

in the Fourteenth Century

edited by

David R Abbott

and Katherine A Spielmann

THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH PRE SS

Salt Lake City

a It CHAPTER 2

~ ileshyte ighshy~es in ted

Salt

In ~( iety

11 and

the and 10f

orthshy~ Peril

r South shyark D middot101

Climatic Demographic and

Environmental Influences on

Central Arizona Settlement Patterns

SCOTT E INGRAM

This chapter addresses two distinct but related research questions First why did so many people move to Perry Mesa during the late thirshyteenth and early fourteenth centuries Second what factors influenced the formation of settleshyment clusters and unoccupied zones around Perry Mesa I approach these questions from a landscape perspective (see Chapter 1) considershying regional-scale climatic environmental and demographic influences on settlement patterns on and around Perry Mesa

It is important to investigate these settlement patterns because they are an integral part of the Verde Confederacy model a prominent case study of endemic warfare and alliance formation in the late prehistoric Southwest (Wilcox 2005 Wilcox et al 2001b) Settlement patterns are the clearest and strongest indirect evidence used to infer prehistoric warfare in the Southwest (LeshyBlanc 199943-44) Thus investigating factors influencing settlement patterns will advance our understanding of the settlement of Perry Mesa as well as the events of this critical period in prehistory

The purpose of this research is not to chalshylenge the Verde Confederacy model or to argue for the absence of warfare and alliances Evishydence of climatic demographic and environshymental influences on settlement patterns does

23

not preclude a coincident rise in warfare or the formation of alliances Multiple models and working hypotheses of factors that influenced the settlement patterns of Perry Mesa and the rest of central Arizona are essential Results from testing these models and hypotheses adshyvance our understanding of the influence ofwarshyfare demography climate and environment on human behavior

To understand why so many people moved to Perry Mesa I investigated regional-scale clishymatic demographic and environmental condishytions that likely pushed and pulled people to Perry Mesa I focus on regional-scale conditions because the pulse of settlement on Perry Mesa was coincident with unprecedented settlement and social changes occurring throughout the US Southwest Most important population inshycreases on Perry Mesa were not unique but part of a massive influx of immigrants moving from northeastern Arizona toward central Arizona during the late 1200S and early 1300S I argue that dry-period declines in resource productivshyity contributed to the push out of northeastern Arizona and that the arrival of these immishygrants contributed to the reorganization of exshyisting settlement patterns in central Arizona I demonstrate the relative demographic and envishyronmental attractiveness of Perry Mesa and the

INGRAM Climatj(

rest of central Arizona for arriving immigrants or local residents displaced by these immigrants I do not however discuss the specific origins of the people on Perry Mesa I also identify unshyprecedented wet conditions and a hiatus in dry conditions during the early 1300S that could have further stimulated and contributed to populashytion growth on Perry Mesa

To understand the formation of settlement clusters and unoccupied zones coincident with population increases in central Arizona I invesshytigate inherent differences in potential resource productivity on and around Perry Mesa These investigations document lower productivity in the unoccupied zones than in locations where settlements were clustered Movement from areas of lower to higher productivity is one poshytential response to climatic dry periods Thus these inherent environmental differences likely contributed to the formation of settlement clusshyters and unoccupied zones

This chapter establishes an interpretation ofsettlement patterns on and around Perry Mesa that does not invoke the influence of increasing warfare the formation of political alliances or a strategy of defense or offense against hostile neighbors The identification of regional-scale influences also suggests that factors affectshying Perry Mesa settlement patterns were not confined to local-scale conditions including local feuding or retaliation for endemic raidshying (cf Rice 2001 Wilcox et al 2001a 2001b Wilcox and Holmlund 2007) These findings demonstrate that the settlement patterns on and around Perry Mesa that have been used to supshyport models of warfare in the region can also be explained by population movements in response to changes in climatic conditions and inherent differences in resource productivity across the landscape

I begin by delineating the spatial boundarshyies of northeastern and central Arizona and its watersheds which form the primary analytical units of this chapter After explaining the reshysearch design data and methods of this study I address the question of why so many people moved to Perry Mesa Next I consider factors that influenced the formation of settlement

clusters and unoccupied zones I conclude by discussing the implications of the study

Study Area

The study area for this research includes central and northeastern Arizona (Figure 21) to acshycommodate the likely source areas for populashytions that migrated into central Arizona in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries Wilcox and Holmlund (200738) argue that to demonstrate that the reason Perry Mesa was selected in the middle 1200S for occupation was environmentally driven providing superior agricultural potentials (Kruse 2005) research would be needed on alternative areas to establish that the contrast really existed A regional-scale study area allows these alternative areas and conshytrasts to be identified and evaluated 1

Watersheds are the primary analytical spashytial unit used in this analysis A watershed is an area of land that drains water sediment and dissolved materials to a common outlet at some point along a stream channel (Dunne and Leoshypold 1978) Watersheds are also referred to as drainage basins or catchment areas and they occur at multiple scales Perry Mesa is located within the Agua Fria watershed whereas the proshyposed Verde Confederacy is contained within the Agua Fria Upper Verde and Lower Verde watersheds The Verde watersheds include the area referred to as the middle Verde Valley throughout this book

This analysis uses the smallest watershed units (cataloging units or sub-basins) idenshytified by the US Geological Service (Seaber et a1 1987) Watersheds are used as an organizing spashytial unit of analysiS because there is some hoshymogeneity of climatic and resource conditions within each watershed Watersheds also delinshyeate a reasonable spatial boundary that may apshyproximate actual resource acquisition zones

Research Design Data and Methods

This section provides the rationale for adopting a regional-scale approach and describes the deshymographic environmental and climatic conshyditions I consider and the data used to identify these conditions

24

F ~middot bull

Climatic Demographic amp Environmental Influences on Central Arizona Settlement Patterns

lude by J - -~ F~--gt( I

1 _ --

~Lower San Juan

central I) to acshypopulashy

[l in the tnturies e that to esa was Ilion was superior research e tablish nal-scale and conshy

[lcal spashybed is an en t and at some nd Leoshy

red to as m d they _ located the proshy

d within -er Verde lude the e Valley

te rshed ) idenshy

ilier et al zi ng spa-

me hoshynditions o delinshymayapshy

nes

hods

ldopting the deshy

31 ic conshyI identify

--- J BI9~ChJnO-M~aS9n (~~nyoo 0 It r )

( --J L6wer Peur I Middl )Little c6orndp I

) Upper Verde L 1 r--- - (--- ~ J)~ c~ _ - ( - -0- _~s Cnevelon-cany 1 (up~r UttirtolQrado

----- l Il ~ T J Silver -- r -shyIPerry Mesa 0=- -l ower jftrtfe ( ------- t 1 r r------J

I Agua Fna Tonto ( Cgtrrizo tp1( J) ~-J Wh~

r ( Upper sa~ ~---r l ~~

J - I

IPhoenix BaSin Ii )-- y

o 150 kmN

FIGURE 21 Central and northeastern Arizona study area watersheds Watershed boundaries (cataloging units) adapted from data available from the USGS (Steeves and Nebert 1994)

- 1

~_

Lowe ake Powell ~ ~)--~I-I) )~ ~ ----- - If) ~- Chinle 41

I Jo Moenkopi Wash - j~1 1~ ) )(orn-Oralbi

) 0i~nebito W~poiCca W~ h 1 j Lover Little Color 01 J~d ~to-vfash te6ux vJafh

~~ r Cotto~woOd y(Sh -L--- A

Regional-Scale Approaches I use a regional-scale approach to understand why people moved to Perry Mesa because the pulse of settlement on the mesa was coincident with dramatic settlement and social changes occurring throughout the Southwest (Cordell

1997365-441) Settlement changes include the depopulation of the northern Southwest popushylation increases in central Arizona and settleshyment aggregation in central and southern Arishyzona (Ciolek-TorreUo 1997 Hill et al 2004 Stark

25

et al 1995 Wallace and Doelle 2001 Wilcox et al 2001b Wilcox et al 2007) Social changes include a reorganized and reduced Hohokam inshyteraction sphere (Bayman 2001280-283 Doyel 2000 Gumerman 1991) the flourishing of new religiOUS forms (Crown 1994) and increasing competition and conflict (LeBlanc 1999 Wilcox and Haas 1994) It is reasonable to expect that these settlement and social changes had some effect on the settlement patterns of Perry Mesa and the rest of central Arizona

INGRAM

Regional-scale approaches are receiving inshycreasing attention in the US Southwest (eg Hegmon 2000 Hill et al 2004 LeBlanc 1999 Varien et al 2007 Wilcox et al 2001b 2007) as spatially comprehensive archaeological datasets become available and demonstration of their interpretive value increases For example in a recent study of population dynamics and historical ecology in the Mesa Verde region Varien and colleagues (2007293) find that the scale of the effective environment that Pueblo people were responding to was much larger than their 1917-km2 study area Similarly I assume that the factors influencing movement into the Perry Mesa area exceed what can be explained by local-scale studies Thus to understand the settlement of Perry Mesa we consider the larger context in which this settlement occurred

My approach is inspired by and similar to the work of Ahlstrom Van West and Dean (1995) and their study of factors motivating migration from the Mesa Verde region to the Northern Rio Grande region in the late thirteenth century Ahlstrom and colleagues (1995125) argue Conshysiderable evidence exists for an environmental gradient having the proper magnitude direcshytion slope timing and location to help explain population movement from the Mesa Verde region to the Northern Rio Grande They also argue for the strong role of sociocultural factors in the migration My efforts in this chapter are to establish a similar environmental gradient toward central Arizona including Perry Mesa Establishing this gradient and the influence of regional-scale conditions expands our focus beshyyond current approaches that emphasize the poshytential for violent and local-scale origins of the Perry Mesa settlement patterns

Demographic Conditions The primary demographic process I examine is population movement Population movements are most likely to occur when there are push facshytors at the population origin and pull factors at the population destination and when the costs of movement between the two are acceptable (Anthony 1990 Herberle 1938 Lee 1966) Push factors (stresses) at the point of origin can inshy

26

clude a poor economy or overpopulation and pull factors (attractions) at the destination can include improved economic conditions or social advantages (Anthony 1990 Cameron 1995111) The push factors considered here are dry periods that decrease resource productivity and increase the risk of resource shortfalls and the disruptive influence of a massive influx of immigrants into central Arizona The pull factors considered are areas of low population denSity and environshymental and climatic conditions that increase potential resource productivity The push-pull concept for archaeological research is well articshyulated by Cameron (1995) and has been effecshytively applied by Ahlstrom et aL (1995) and Lipe

(1995)middot Population movement in the study area

is identified by calculating compound annual population groth rates (CAGR) by watershed during the 1250 to 1299 and 1300 to 1349 intershyvals The CAGR describes population change as a constant percentage each year (Hassan 1981 140 Kintigh et al 2004440) The formula is CAGR = (p2pl) lin - 1 In this study p2 and pI are the number of identified rooms in the 1300 to 1349 interval and in the 1250 to 1299 interval respectively and n is the number of years in the interval Growth rates in excess of 07 percent exceed what can be expected from changes in fertility and mortality (Cowgill 1975) and thus in-migration is strongly implicated

Settlement data to calculate growth rates came from the Coalescent Communities Datashybase (Wilcox et al 2003 see Wilcox et al 2007 for a description of the development of the database) This database is the most compreshyhensive source of settlement data available for the study area It has recently been employed in several studies with implications for the extent of warfare alliances and population decline in the US Southwest (Hill et al 2004 Wilcox et al 2001a 2001b Wilcox et al 2007) Wilcox and colleagues (2001a 200lb) used the same datashybase to detect the settlement patterns used to infer the Verde Confederacy I follow Hill et al (2004693) and the Coalescent Communities Database authors (Wilcox et al 2003) and conshysider only settlements with at least 13 rooms


and l can ocial ll)

riods rease

ptive into

dare tronshyrease pull II tic shy

middotffecshy

Lipe

area

Inual

shed nter-

Ige as

1981 l la is d pi 1300 ~rval

n the [cent

~es in thus

ra tes )atashy

2007 - the

Ilpreshy

Ie for ed in xtent nein etal and

datashy

ed to et al nities conshy

oms

ata on settlements with fewer than 13 rooms Jre less complete and less reliable due to lower ou rface visibility and detection The 50-year inshy

tervals (1200 to 1249 and 1300 to 1349) used to identify population movements are based on the trengths of the data and the realities of chronoshy

logical resolution in the region (Hill et al 2004) In addition to changing demographic conshy

ditions created by population movements difshy-e rences in population denSity are considered at the watershed scale Population density affects

the demand for resources more people conshyume more resources and increase the rate of

resource consumption in a given area I assume

that low-density areas were more attractive areas fo r settlement than high-density areas if potenshytial productivity among alternatives was simishylar Low-density areas offer fewer constraints on

resource acquisition and mobility (eg Varien

et al 1996) and may result in less competition for resources Differences in population density

are identified by summing the number of rooms occupied during a 50-year interval and dividing the total by the number of square kilometers in each watershed The result is the rooms per square kilometer The Coalescent Communities Database is used to identify the number of

rooms occupied in each watershed

Environmental Conditions The environmental conditions I consider are inherent differences in resource productivity across the landscape and natural geographic feashytures that influence the extent of arable land and

its associated productivity Long-term precipitashytion levels across the region are used to identify

inherent differences in resource productivity Precipitation levels are linked to resource proshyductiVity through the effects of water on plant and animal growth Resources are defined as the plant (wild and cultivated) and animal foods

necessary to meet food needs and social obligashy

tions (after Hegmon 1989) Precipitation affects

resource productivity because plant growth reshyquires water and excesses or deficiencies may

stress a plant and affect its growth and producshytivity (Levitt 1980 Muenchrath and Salvador

1995309-310) Animals that rely on plant foods

27

are also affected by changes in precipitation that influence plant growth (Bright and Hervert 2005) Water deficits are a common production constraint in the Southwest where precipitashy

tion levels are below the moisture requirements of most crops (Muenchrath and Salvador 1995) Other factors such as soil type and quality (eg Sandor et al 2007) and temperature affect reshysource productivity but are beyond the scope of this study given the extent of the spatial area considered

I use the PRISM (Parameter-Elevation Reshy

gressions on Independent Slopes Model) climate

mapping system to identify average annual preshy

cipitation throughout the study area (PRISM Cli shymate Group 2007) The averages are calculated from 1961 to 1990 and are considered a climatic normal (National Climate Data Center 2010) PRISM incorporates instrumental point data a

digital elevation model and expert knowledge

of complex climatic extremes including rain

shadows and temperature inversions (Daly et a1 1994) The model prOvides the US Department of Agricultures official climatological data and is recognized as offering the highest-quality climate data avail able (PRISM Climate Group

2010) tree-ring data cannot capture spatial

differences in precipitation at the same level of

resolution Differences in precipitation levels establish inherent and relatively constant differshyences in potential productiVity between settleshyment areas

Three natural geographic features are conshysidered here (1) perennial rivers that could

have enhanced potential resource productivity (2) areas with relatively short growing seasons

that would have challenged successful farming and (3) areas with sloping land that would have limited the extent of arable land and decreased potential productiVity Current and historic peshyrennial rivers and portions of rivers identified to

be perennial have been determined by an assessshy

ment conducted by The Nature Conservancy

(2006) The Conservancys project synthesized

and updated previous and similar maps and

work by Brown et al (1977 1981) for the Arizona Game and Fish Department and the US Forshyest Service and by Miller (1954) It is possible

INGRAM

that modern diversions and groundwater exshytractions have decreased the extent of perennial resources however the perennial resources identified were certainly flowing in the past I use the Conservancys assessment and data in combination with the Coalescent Communities Database to identify settlements adjacent to the perennial portions of rivers in the study area Growing season durations are identified using modern climatic data (Western Regional Clishymate Center 2010) I identify the slopes ofland with GIS analysis of a digital elevation model

Climatic Conditions Two climatic conditions are considered (1) dry periods that decrease productivity and (2) wet periods that increase productivity Dry periods are assumed to increase the real or perceived risk of resource shortfalls Wet periods are assumed to decrease these risks Resource shortfalls ocshycur when there is not enough food to eat and a behavioral response is necessary to manage this risk Risk has been defined and used in a number of ways (eg Cashdan 1990 Tainter and Tainter 1996) but is generally understood as the probshyability of a loss (Cashdan 1985 Wiessner 1982 Winterhalder 1986) or negative consequence (such as a shortfall) multiplied by the magnishytude of the consequence These risks can be real or perceived human perceptions of changing conditions and associated risks may differ from actual changes in conditions (Burton et al 1993 Ortiz 1979 Whyte 1985)

To manage the real or perceived risk of reshysource shortfalls people employ a wide range of strategies including mobility resource diversishyfication physical storage and exchange (Braun and Plog 1982 Burns 1983 Dean 2006 Halstead and OShea 19893-4 Minnis 1985 Rautman 1993 Slatter 197980 84) These strategies can address shortfall risks by increasing resources or access to resources The focus of this analysiS is on population movement as a possible reshysponse to the real or perceived risk of shortshyfalls people can move away from areas of food scarcity and low productivity to areas of higher productivity (Halstead and OShea 1989) In the US Southwest population movements and the

28

settlement pattern changes they produced have been closely examined and correlated at some places and times with changes in climate conshyditions especially multi-year dry periods (eg Ahlstrom et al 1995 Adams 1998 Cordell 1975 Cordell et al 2007 Dean et al 1985 Euler et al 1979 Gumerman 1988 Judge 1989 Lipe 1995 Minnis 1985 Orcutt 1991 Schlanger 1988 Van West and Dean 2000) Climatic conditions are not the only factor that affects the risks of shortfall Decisions to move from one place to another are not solely influenced by climate and resource productivity considerations (eg Camshyeron 1995) Nevertheless previous research has demonstrated that population movement is an effective strategy for lessening climate-related resource shortfalls (Halstead and OShea 1989) and ample ethnohistoric evidence in the region documents movement in response to resource shortfalls (Slatter 1979)

I use the San Francisco Peaks (SFP) tree-ring precipitation reconstruction to represent preshycipitation conditions in central Arizona and on Perry Mesa Three tree-ring chronologies were used by Salzer (2000) and Salzer and Kipfmuelshyler (2005) to develop the reconstruction Flagshystaff Navajo Mountain and Canyon de Chelly These chronologies were originally developed as a part of the Southwest Paleoclimate Project (Dean and Robinson 1978) and are composed of archaeological and living tree specimens from elevations of apprOXimately 1890 to 2290 m in northern Arizona and southern Utah (Salzer 200028) Combining the chronologies typishycally strengthens the climate signal by increasing sample sizes and buffering the influence ofnonshyclimatic factors at individual sites (Salzer 2000 28) Furthermore spatial networks of tree-ring chronologies usually explain more of the varishyance in a climate variable than a single chronolshyogy can (Salzer 200028 citing Cook et al 1994 Meko et al 1993) Thus the regional-scale focus of my study is compatible with the strengths of the paleoclimatic data

I evaluate the representativeness of the San Francisco Peaks chronology for the Perry Mesa vicinity and the rest of central Arizona in three steps First modern instrumental precipitation


if)have ill L 25 uome S

20 con- cshy

g (eg 1sect 15

0 1975 (3 10

~et al D- 5

1995 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 Van - Cordes climate station precipitation previous October through current July

lions - Instrumental climate data Flagstaff area previous October through current July

s of IGURE 22 Cordes precipitation and Flagstaff area precipitation Data from the Western Regional Climate

ce to Center (2010) The gap in the Cordes precipitation values in the late 1940S is due to missing data ~ and

=amshyif)

ill 25i1 has L

U c 20 C

is an lated 0 15

2989) 10a gion

(3

~ 5 D-Jurce

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985

- Cordes climate station precipitation previous October through current July -ring - San Francisco Peaks tree-ring precipitation reconstruction previous October through current July

(Salzer and Kipfmueller 2005) preshyId on =IGURE 23 Modern precipitation near Perry Mesa (Cordes Station Western Regional Climate Center 2010)

were and San Francisco Peaks precipitation reconstruction (Salzer and Kipfmueller 2005)

nuelshyFlagshy records from the Cordes meteorological station i1elly Me compared to the cluster of modern meteoroshyoped gical stations in the San Francisco Peaks area oject Jsed to calibrate the SFP precipitation chronolshyed of ogy (Figure 22) The Cordes station is approxshyfrom imately 13 km northwest of Perry Mesa and at m in a similar elevation ( ~3700 feet) The period 1lzer -rom the previous October to current July was typishy determined by Salzer (200031) to be the intershysing al when precipitation had the greatest effect on nonshy tree growth thus the SFP tree-ring precipitation 0 00 -hronology is an October-July reconstruction -ring -n examination of the period of overlap beshyvari - tween the modern Cordes records and the SFP )nol- area meteorological stations (1927 to 2007 preshy1994 -ious October to current July) produced a strong ocus Pearsons r correlation coefficient (r = 82) The hs of trength ofthis correlation reflects a high degree

of spatial homogeneity in climate in the region ~ San even though the absolute values ofprecipitation 1esa vary largely by elevation three Second I compare the SFP tree-ring chroshyltion nology to the Cordes precipitation records for

29

the period of overlap (1927 to 2007 previous Ocshytober through current July Figure 23) As exshypected based on the strong relationship between the modern climate data for the two areas2 the SFP chronology is well correlated with the Cordes precipitation records (r =67)

Third to assess the strength of the San Franshycisco Peaks reconstruction to represent climate variation throughout central Arizona I examshyined the relationship between modern precipishytation data as represented by precipitation totals from previous October to current July for Clishymate Divisions 3 and 4 making up all of central Arizona and compared them to the SFP reconshystruction (Figures 2-4 and 25) Perry Mesa and most of the postulated Verde Confederacy are in the eastern portion of Climate Division 3 and to a lesser extent in the western portion of Division 4 The correlation between the SFP reconstrucshytion and Climate Division 3 is r =75 (Figure 2-4)

and for Climate Division 4 is r = 72 (Figure 25)

High precipitation years are less accurately retshyrodicted by tree-ring proxy data because years

INGRAM

() ltJ) c (J 20

~

C 0 15

~ 6 10 (3 ltJ)

Q 5

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 - San Francisco Peaks tree-ring precipitation reconstruction previous October through current July

(Salzer and Kipfmueller 2005) - Climate Division 3 previous October through current July

FIGURE 24 Climate Division 3 and San Francisco Peaks precipitation reconstruction Division data from the

National Climatic Data Center (2009)

() 30 Q)

lt 25(J

S C 20 0

2 15 6 0 10 ~ a

5

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 -

-

San Francisco Peaks tree-ring precipitation reconstruction pr(Salzer and Kipfmueller 2005) Climate Division 4 previous October through current July

evious October through current July

FIGURE 25 Climate Division 4 and San Francisco Peaks precipitation reconstruction Division data from the National Climatic Data Center (2009)

with above-average precipitation allow nonclishy I use the Canyon de Chelly precipitation matic processes to exert a greater influence on reconstruction to represent precipitation condishytree growth (Fritts 1976) tions in northeastern Arizona This reconstrucshy

Dry and wet periods during the period of tion was developed by the Southwest Paleoshystudy are identified using a nine-year-intervalshy climate Project of the University of Arizonas centered moving average throughout the dushy Laboratory of Tree-ring Research (Dean and ration of the tree-ring precipitation reconshy Robinson 1978) structions (AD 571 to 1988) Dry periods are

Why Did People Move sometimes referred to as droughts but definishyto Perry Mesa tions of drought are ambiguous and contested

To avoid these problems I use the term dry To address the question ofwhy people moved to period and define it as those intervals in the Perry Mesa during the late thirteenth and early lowest quartile of the distribution ofaU nine -year fourteenth centuries I place Perry Mesa in its intervals in the reconstruction (see Ingram 2010 regional context (central and northern Arizona) 100-104 for a complete methodological discusshy and compare it to other places and conditions sion) Very dry periods are defined as those in this region I pursue a comparative approach intervals in the lowest decile of the distribution because people were on the move in the region at of all nine-year intervals in the reconstruction the time of population increases on Perry Mesa Wet periods are defined as those intervals in Comparing Perry Mesa to other potential destishythe highest quartile and very wet periods are nations helps answer the question of why Perry defined as those intervals in the highest decile Mesa was selected for settlement by so many

30

Climatic Demographic ampEnvironmental Influences on Central Arizona Settlement Patterns

he

(ation ondishy

trucshyPaleoshyzonas nand

ed to I early in its izona) itions lroach

~ion at Mesa destishy

Perry

many

people The analyses in this section demonstrate the relative climatic demographic and environshymental attractiveness of Perry Mesa and envishyrons for settlement Seen in this regional context Perry Mesa no longer seems a harsh and unlikely place to live Rather the question becomes exshyplaining why Perry Mesa was not substantially settled earlier- but that question is beyond the scope of this chapter I also identify unique and unprecedented wet climatic conditions in the early 1300S These conditions should have inshycreased resource productivity on and around Perry Mesa and may have supported or stimushylated the population growth that occurred there

Immigration into Central Arizona Settlement and population growth in central Arizona during the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries occurred in the context of substantial immigration into central and southshyeastern Arizona matched by equally substantial emigration out of northeastern Arizona and central portions of the Southwest (Clark 2001 Clark et al 2008 Colton 1946 Reid and Whittleshysey 1997 Stark et al 1995) Social environ menshyal and climatic causes of this massive migration of people out of the northern Southwest in the late 1200S have been advanced (eg Ahlstrom et al 1995 Jett 1964 Kohler et al 2008 Lipe 1995 Varian et al 1996 Van West and Dean 2000 see also Kohler 1993295-297 for a summary)

Patterns of population movement in the Southwest are illustrated in Figure 26 using compound annual growth rates by watershed during the 1250 to 1299 and 1300 to 1349 intershyvals During the 1250 to 1299 interval immishygration took place throughout much of eastern Arizona (darkest shading in the figure) During the 1300 to 1349 interval those areas in northshyeastern Arizona with high growth rates during the previous interval experienced rapid popshyulation loss while gwwth rates increased and immigration became concentrated in the Agua Fria (including Perry Mesa) and the adjacent Upper and Lower Verde watersheds In absoshylute terms the number of identified rooms in the Agua Fria Lower Verde Tonto Upper Salt and Upper Verde watersheds increased 44 pershy

31

cent (from 10163 to 14643 rooms) between the 1250 to 1299 and 1300 to 1349 intervals These watersheds make up the primary areas of occushypation in central Arizona outside the Phoenix Basin In the Agua Fria watershed the number of identified rooms increased 353 percent (from 427 to 1937 rooms) during the 1300 to 1349 inshyterval compared to the previous interval The compound annual population growth rate was 3 percent from the 1250-1299 to 1300- 1349 inshyterval far in excess of what can be expected from changes in fertility and mortality (Cowgill 1975) Wilcox and colleagues (200lb164 Table 7-4) estimate that there were about 1751 rooms on Perry Mesa in the early 1300S

From these maps I infer a strong northshyeastern to central Arizona direction for popshyulation movements during the late 1200S and early 1300S This pattern of movement has been demonstrated by ceramic and obsidian sourcshying (Clark et al 2008) analyses of Puebloan enclaves within traditionally Hohokam settleshyments (Clark 2001 Haury 1958 Stark et al 1995) and analyses of changes in population denSity throughout the Southwest (Hill et al 2004) The identification of a direction of population movements from these maps does not however suggest the specific origin or cultural identity of peoples living on Perry Mesa Population loss and movements from adjacent watersheds (Big Chino Burro Santa Maria Hassayampa) to the north and west of the Agua Fria and Perry Mesa as well as from the foothills north of the Phoenix Basin could also have contributed to population increases on Perry Mesa Arguments tracing migration pathways to their destinations are fraught with interpretive challenges (Cordell 1995) and are best left to others with more apshypropriate data to consider

Nevertheless I argue that this massive influx of immigrants into central Arizona was a conshytributing factor or push for the reorganization of settlement patterns in central Arizona The arrival of immigrants would have been disrupshytive to existing central Arizona populations and people may have shifted and reorganized existshying settlements to accommodate the influx Hill and colleagues (2004699) using Kowalewskis

1250 to 1299

1300 101349

Depopulation

Ou -mIgration (negative annua1growth rate)

Internal growtll (1 to 7 annual growth rate) o 300 km hl-mlgr9tQn ( 7 and above aMull1 growth rate) N

FIGURE 26 Changes in population growth rates 1250 to 1349 Growth rates calcu lated from settlement data in the Coalescent Communities Database (Wilcox et at 2003)


ltf) (j) 20

pound u pound 16 c-Q 12 sect ii 8u i

D- 4 1200 1210 1220 1230 1240 1250 1260 1270 1280 1290 1300 1310 1320 1330 1340 1350

Dry period bull Very dry period

- Canyon de Chelly tree-ring precipitation reconstruction previous August through current July Preciprtalion reconstruction developed by Dean and Robinson (1978) Dry periods identified by Ingram

t lGURE 27 Reconstructed precipitation levels and dry periods in northeastern Arizona

2001) model of community coalescence argue parts of the Verde Confederacy This date is also migration [into central and southern Arizona] based on the temporally coincident depopulashy

lt1 S an important catalyst in coalescence genshy tion of adjacent territories and the initiation of rating economic pressure and causing social compound architecture in the Phoenix Basin d isruption on a large scale Similarly Colton Thus conditions during the 1250 to 1299 interval 1946) has argued that the southward migration are the best approximation of the climatic conshy

of the Northern Sinagua perhaps stimulated by text of the initial pulse in settlement founding on the 1276-1299 drought displaced resident Hoshy Perry Mesa and the rest of central Arizona This hokam populations in the middle Verde Valley interval includes the so-called Great Drought east of Perry Mesa) (Douglass 1929) of approximately 1274 to 1299

I focus on this massive influx of immigrants (see also Van West and Dean 2000) into central Arizona because it is a parsimoni- Dry periods (defined above) during the 1250

us explanation ofwhy population increased on to 1299 interval were more prolonged and seshyPerry Mesa Population increased because there vere in northeastern Arizona (Figure 27) than were thousands of people moving to central Arishy in central Arizona (Figure 28) Dry periods zona looking for places to live In the process made up 48 percent of the 1250 to 1299 interval they probably threatened and displaced existing in northeastern Arizona compared to 28 pershyresidents Those who made up the population cent of the interval in central Arizona The dry increases on Perry Mesa then could have been periods in northeastern Arizona were also more residents of nearby locales displaced or threatshy severe 22 percent of the 50-year intervals there ened by the immigrants or new amalgamations included very dry years while only 8 percent of of previously distinct groups Explaining popushy the intervals in central Arizona included very lation increases on Perry Mesa as a strategic deshy dry years Thus a climatic push from very dry loyment to protect the western flank of a politshy conditions in the late 1200S in northeastern Arishyical alliance (Wilcox et al 200lb167-168) seems zona combined with a climatic pull from less unnecessarily complex and especially difficult to prolonged and severe conditions in central Arishydemonstrate zona seems likely to have been among the many

factors stimulating population movements out Climatic Push and Pull of northeastern Arizona Reid (1989) and Redshyin the Late Thirteenth Century man (1993) have also suggested that population Using the available but limited temporally diagshy movements from the Colorado Plateau toward nostic ceramics Wilcox and Holmlund (2007 the Mogollon Rim of central Arizona were 94) have proposed an approximate initiation drought-induced and Van West et al (2000) date of 1275 for settlements on and around Perry have suggested a similar basis for movements to lta Mesa and an increase in settlement in other the Tonto Basin

33

INGRAM

if)

20Q) L ()

f 16 C Q sect

12

0 u 8 Q)

0 4

1200 1210 1220 1230 1240 1250 1260 1270 1280 1290 1300 1310 1320 1330 1340 1350


- San Francisco Peaks tree-ring precipitation reconstruction previous October through current July

Precipitation reconstruction developed by Salzer and Kipfmueller (2005) Dry periods identifed by Ingram

FIGURE 28 Reconstructed precipitation levels and dry periods in central Arizona near Perry Mesa

TABLE 21 Average Annual Precipitation 1895 to

2006 by Arizona Climate Division

Average annual Climate Division precipitation (inches)

Arizona 4 187

Arizona 3 (Perry Mesa) 156

Arizona 2 146

Arizona 7 142

Arizona 6 98

Arizona 1 96

Arizona 5 47

a Computed using data from the National Climate Data

Center (2009)

Environmental and Demographic Pull Factors The analysis in this section considers the relative environmental and demographic attractiveness of the Agua Fria watershed (including Perry Mesa) compared to watersheds throughout northeastern and central Arizona Environmenshytal conditions influence the potential productivshyity or supply of resources and are assessed with long-term average precipitation levels Demoshygraphic conditions influence the demand for resources and are assessed with watershed popshyulation density (as previously discussed) I exshyamine density during the 1250 to 1299 and 1300

to 1349 intervals because decisions to move to the Agua Fria watershed and the rest of central Arizona were likely made based on information obtained during these intervals To compare the attractiveness ofall watersheds in the study area I combine demographic and environmental conshyditions into an attractiveness index for each watershed as discussed further below

34

Environmental conditions as indicated by precipitation levels are more favorable for reshysource productivity in central Arizona than in northeastern Arizona Figure 29 shows the distribution of average precipitation across Arizona with darker-shaded areas receiving more precipitation than lighter-shaded areas Perry Mesa and the rest of central Arizona are on a northwest to southeast oriented island of relatively high precipitation and potential proshyductivity The six numbered polygons across the map are the designated climate divisions of central Arizona The absolute precipitation values by climate division are presented in Table 21 The postulated Verde Confederacy is located primarily in the eastern portion of Climate Dishyvision 3 and minimally in the western portion of Climate Division 4 The area covered by these divisions receives the highest average annual precipitation of any area in Arizona

Demographic conditions were also favorshyable for settlement in the Agua Fria watershed during the 1250 to 1299 interval Population density in the Agua Fria was the lowest of any of the populated watersheds of central Arizona and the fourth lowest among the 25 populated watersheds ofcentral and northeastern Arizona (Table 22) During the 1300 to 1349 interval the Agua Fria watershed had the second-lowest population density among the watersheds of central Arizona and the seventh-lowest density among the 19 populated watersheds of central and northeastern Arizona

An attractiveness index that considers both demographic and environmental condishy

I


0

led by or reshy

than -5 the across civing areas na are Ind of it proshyKroSS risions tation 1 Table ocated ate Dishy

rtion r these Ulnual

favo rshyershed n ation of any r izona ulated

[ izona lIerval middotlowest leds of lensity central

1siders -ondishy

tions also allows inter-watershed comparisons The index is a watersheds average precipitation level divided by its population denSity I identify watershed precipitation levels based on average precipitation levels in the climate division that includes the watershed (Table 21 ) Low index scores represent less attractive areas (low precipshyitation and high density) than high index scores (high precipitation and low density)

During the 1250 to 1299 interval the Agua Fria watershed ranked fourth highest in terms of the attractiveness of all 25 study area watersheds (Table 22) During the 1300 to 1349 interval it ranked eighth highest The relatively high attracshy

35

2

o 2S 50 100 IltIiDrretetI I I I I I t r I

FIGURE 29 Average precipitation (1961 to 1990) in central Arizona (PRISM 2007 Oregon State University) and climate division boundaries (National Climate Data Center 2009) Each contour interval represents a two-inch average annual precipitation range (eg nine to eleven inches) Darker shaded areas recei ve more precipitation than lighter shaded areas

tiveness of the Agua Fria watershed particularly during the 1250 to 1299 interval when decisions to move into the Agua Fria watershed were likely considered or initiated identify the probable influence of resource productivity (supply) and population denSity (demand) considerations on population destinations

These results are consistent with the work of Van West and Altschul (1994) who modeled potential agricultural productivity in the Tonto Basin (Tonto watershed) and compared it to conditions on the Colorado Plateau during the prehistoric period Van West and Altschul (1994

430) argue that it seems reasonable to consider

TABLE 22 Precipitation Density and Relative Attractiveness of Study Area Watersheds

Number of Relative Number of Relative Average annual Area rooms Density attractiveness rooms Density attractiveness

Watershed precipitationa (km2)b 1250-1299 1250-1299 d 1250-1299 1300-1349 1300-1349 d 1300-1349

Agua Fria 156 6355 427 07 223 1937 30 52

Canyon Diablo 146 3098 569 18 81 1140 37 39

Carrizo 187 1786 505 28 67 555 31 60

Chevelon Canyon 146 2219 219 10 146 350 16 91

Chinle 146 10565 2700 26 56 175 02 730

Corn-Oraibi 146 2236 1900 85 17 1200 54 27

Cottonwood Wash 146 4 140 666 16 91 765 18 81

Dinnebito Wash 146 1927 110 06 243

Jeddito Wash 146 2734 2775 102 14 3175 16 13

Leroux Wash 146 2103 1335 63 23

Lower Lake Powell 146 7744 438 06 243

Lower Little Colorado 146 6211 204 03 487

Lower Puerco 146 2829 1085 38 38 875 31 47

Lower Salt (Phoenix) 9 8 3442 7121 207 5 8 126 236 4

Lower San Juan 146 6214 682 11 133

Lower Verde 156 5019 1764 35 45 3318 66 24

Middle Little Colorado 146 6345 694 11 133 819 13 112

Moenkopi Wash 146 6776 785 12 122

Polacca Wash 146 2780 2925 105 14 2400 86 17

Silver 146 2440 1222 50 29 1010 41 36

Tonto 187 2694 2221 82 23 1444 54 35

Upper Little Colorado 146 4219 1 181 28 52 605 14 104

Upper Salt 187 5612 3701 66 28 4922 88 21

Upper Verde 156 6372 1 115 17 92 1667 26 60

White 187 1703 430 25 75 800 47 40

Based on average precipitation levels in the climate division (National Climatic Data Center 2009) that includes the watershed b Calculated using watershed boundaries (Steeves and Nebert 1994) and ArcGIS 91 software ( Calculated using the Coalescent Communities Database (Wilcox et al 2003) and an overlay of watershed boundaries d Rooms per square kilometer calculated by dividing the number of identified rooms in a watershed by the watershed s area e The index is a watersheds average precipitation level divided by its population density Low index scores represent less attractive areas (low precipitation and high density) than high index sc o rp~ (hi1 h pr(cipil iltion and low density)


(f) (J)

s 20 () c 16 c-Q 12 sect 0 8 (3

2 4 (L

1200 1225 1250 1275 1300 1325 1350 1375 1400 1425 1450 Wet period

bull Very wet period - San Francisco Peaks tree-ring precipitation reconstruction previous October through current July

Precipitation reconstruction developed by Salzer and Kipfmueller (2005) Wet periods identified by Ingram

o = FIGURE 210 Reconstructed wet periods nearest the Perry Mesa area 1200 to 1450

that the relative attractiveness of the basin was a draw for risk-prone agricultural populations particularly those from the Colorado Plateau Citing opportunities for irrigated agriculture including runoff and water-harvesting agriculshytural systems along with relatively abundant wild foods in the Tonto Basin they concluded that dry periods would likely not have been as disastrous to the economy in the Tonto Basin as they were for the Colorado Plateau (Van West and Altschul 1994A30)

Unprecedented Favorable Climatic Conditions in the Early 73005

Room counts and inferred population levels in central Arizona peaked during the 1300 to 1349 interval We do not yet know when population levels on Perry Mesa reached their highest points The 1300 to 1349 interval includes an exshyceptional16-year wet period from 1321 to 1336 (Figure 210) which is the wettest in the entire IA18-year precipitation reconstruction (see Salzer and Dean 2006110 117 Dean and Robinshyson 198253 and Rose 1994 for similar results) During this wet period precipitation levels avshyeraged 26 percent above the long-term average for the reconstruction Based on the modern avshyerage precipitation level for the Cordes weather station near Perry Mesa (1524 inches Western Regional Climate Center 2010) a 25 percent inshycrease suggests that precipitation was about 19 inches annually At the peak of this wet period (1333) precipitation levels reached 75 percent

above the long-term average for the reconstrucshytion This result suggests an annual precipitashytion level of 26 inches on Perry Mesa Actual precipitation values on Perry Mesa were likely conSiderably higher because high precipitation years as noted above are understated by treeshyring proxy data (Fritts 1976)

To place these approximations of actual precipitation values in perspective we can comshypare them with averages from other locales For example maize is cultivated on the Hopi Mesas of northeastern Arizona with a variety of water management strategies and annual precipitation averages of 11 or 12 inches (Hack 1942) Maize was cultivated on Mesa Verde in southwestern Colorado with an average of 17-8 inches of preshycipitation (Western Regional Climate Center 2010) Precipitation conditions on Perry Mesa then were exceptionally favorable during the early 1300S if we assume that greater precipishytation levels did not create other problems for cultivation

The unprecedented conditions of the 1300 to 1349 interval also include a 39-year hiatus in multiyear dry periods from 1300 to 1338 (see Figshyure 28) This hiatus was the longest such period that had occurred in this area for 475 years Thus a combination of wet-period increases in resource productivity and a hiatus in dry-period decreases in productivity probably contributed to the population buildup on Perry Mesa and throughout central Arizona during the early 1300S

37

INGRAM

Summary In summary population increases on Perry Mesa were not a unique local-scale phenomeshynon but part of a massive influx of immigrants moving from northeastern Arizona toward central Arizona during the late 1200S and early 1300S The analyses presented above identified a climatic push for these movements out of northeastern Arizona and a climatic pull to shyward central Arizona The relative demographic and productive attractiveness ofPerry Mesa and environs was also demonstrated Moreover unshyprecedented wet conditions and a hiatus in dry conditions characterize central Arizona during the early 1300S These conditions could have further stimulated population grol-vth on Perry Mesa The identification of regional-scale influshyences on central Arizona settlement patterns also suggests that the pulse and location of setshytlements on and around Perry Mesa during the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries do not alone provide strong evidence of increasing warfare in the region

Why Settlement Clusters and Unoccupied Zones

Analyses of resource productivity are also inshyformative for understanding why some areas became unoccupied while others supported setshytlement clusters Differences in potential proshyductivity suggest that spatial heterogeneity in landscape productivity plays a significant role in settlement location decisions

Background Settlement clustering becomes evident when settlements are located in relatively close proxshyimity to one another and separated from other similar clusters by unoccupied zones of little or no settlement Unoccupied zones can be the unshyintentional result of settlement clustering or an intentional effort to create open spaces between socially distant or hostile peoples Evidence that an area was settled and later abandoned has been used to infer that an unoccupied zone served a defensive function (LeBlanc and Rice 200115 Wilcox et al 2001b158) Conflict models often refer to unoccupied zones as buffer zones or

no-mans-lands (DeBoer 1981 LeBlanc 1999 Wilcox et al 200lb Wilcox and Haas 1994) In this analysis I follow LeBlanc and Rice (200115) and refer to these areas as unoccupied zones because it does not presuppose the intentional creation use or function of an area lacking setshytlement

Settlement clustering is also referred to as aggregation among US Southwestern archaeshyologists and there is a rich history of debate as to its causes (Haury 1962 Kohler and Sebastian 1996 Leonard and Reed 1993 Longacre 1966 Plog et al 1988) Key dimensions of explanatory models of aggregation include population denshysity the nature of the subsistence base and agshyricultural technology paleoenvironmental facshytors and methods ofsocial integration (Cordell et al 1994111) Of particular interest in this study are explanations of aggregation that consider changes in climatic conditions andor increases in conflict and warfare

Climatic conditions and changes in these conditions can create settlement clusters and unoccupied zones through several processes For example population movements from areas of lower to greater productivity to reduce the real or perceived risk of resource shortfalls associated with dry periods can create unoccushypied zones in areas of low productivity where shortfall risks likely prevailed If patches of land offering greater potential productivity are surshyrounded by less productive places clustering in the most productive places can be expected (eg Plog et al 1988) Settlement clustering could also reflect an enlargement of the basic social unit for cooperation in response to climatic deteriorashytion (Hill and Trierweiler 1986 Longacre 1966)

Conflict can produce settlement clusters and unoccupied zones if people aggregate to deshycrease their real or perceived risk of harm associshyated with increases in hostilities Settlements in close proximity may gain defensive or offensive strength in numbers and provide early warnings of attack to nearby settlements (eg Wilcox and Haas 1994 Wilcox et al 2001a 2001b Rice 2001) Unoccupied zones may reduce the potential for conflict by raising the transportation costs beshytween people and prOViding resources in emershy

38


)99 I In

15) les

mal set-

o as laeshyte as tian

966 tory denshyI agshyfacshy

rdell rudy ider

ases

hese and sses [Tom

uce tfalls ccushy

here Iand

~ surshyj Ig in (eg

also it for iorashyq66)

lsters lodeshysocishy

nts in nsive

nings middotxand WOl)

al for Is beshyemershy

gency situations (DeBoer 1981 LeBlanc 1999 lartin and Szuter 1999) Unoccupied zones also delineate settlement clusters and spatial assoshyciations may indicate a political relationship or polity (Wilcox 1981 Upham 1982) Unoccupied zones have been documented in central and southern Arizona and throughout the Southwest at various times (see Wilcox and Haas 1994230shy232 for some examples)

LeBlanc (19990) argues that site (settleshyment) clusters and unoccupied zones are probshyably the most legible Signatures of warfare He urther argues that settlement clusters and unocshy-upied zones were inefficient because they conshy-entrated resource utilization causing overexshyploitation of immediately adjacent resources and under utilization of more distant ones (also see Wilcox 1981) Clustering of people he believes was so nonoptimal that under many circumshystances people would have avoided forming such concentrated settlement clusters unless strongly compelled to do so (LeBlanc 199970 but see Chapter 3 for an argument favoring agshygregation for efficient resource access) Reducing the risks ofharm associated with conflict and deshyfense are the presumed compelling reason for asshysuming these nonoptimal settlement patterns

An examination of changes in the distribushytion of settlements over time in central Arizona indicates that the settlement clusters were the result of an increase in settlement founding in specific areas on the landscape and that the unshyoccupied zones were in some places the result of settlement abandonments Wilcox et al (200lb) describe this process and it is supported by an examination of maps of settlement distributions at 50-year intervals developed with the Coalesshycent Communities Database (Wilcox et al 2003)

Differences in Resource Productivity between Unoccupied Zones and Settlement Clusters Unoccupied Zones Wilcox et al (200lb162) identified three unocshycupied zones in the Agua Fria and Verde watershysheds that surround the postulated Verde Conshyfederacy (1) between the middle Verde Valley and Chavez Pass (2) between Polles Mesa and the northern Tonto Basin and (3) between Perry

39

Mesa the lower Verde Valley and the Phoenix Basin (Figure 2ll) In this section I identify the productivity characteristics of each of these zones and some physiographic factors to undershystand why they were unoccupied

According to Wilcox et al (2001a125 2001b162-163) the unoccupied zones were inishytiated about llOO and widened around 1250 and the unoccupied zones were clearly evident beshytween multi-settlement site clusters by the late 1200S and early 1300S The protracted 200-year duration of their initiation and spread challenges our attempts to empirically identify and evalushyate specific potential causes It is important to note however that in only one of the three unshyoccupied zones (number 3) is there evidence of extensive settlement and a subsequent pattern of abandonment A pattern of abandonment is one indicator marking the emergence of a bufshyfer zone (LeBlanc and Rice 200115 Wilcox et al 2001b158) The absence of this pattern of abanshydonment in two of the three unoccupied zones suggests the important influence of the prod ucshytivity characteristics on discouraging settlement in these areas

Unoccupied zone 1 between the middle Verde Valley and Chavez Pass is characterized by several features that would have made the area undesirable for settlement due to challenges to agricultural productivity First the length of the freeze-free period in the unoccupied zone is 91 to 120 days (National Climatic Data Censhyter 2006) It is possible that this was sufficient for successful short season maize production (Muenchrath and Salvador 1995311 and refshyerences contained therein) however the risk of shortfall due to early or late freezes is much greater here than elsewhere in central Arizona where freeze-free periods typically exceed 180 days (such as on Perry Mesa) Second the Middle Verde and Chavez Pass are separated by a lAoo-m elevation change (Figure 212) This area referred to as the Mogollon Rim is where

the Colorado Plateau begins its transition to the lower elevations of the Sonoran Desert Farming on associated slopes would have been difficult in comparison to opportunities along the floodshyplain of the middle Verde Valley or the gently

INGRAM

FIGURE 211 Unoccupied zones around Perry Mesa Perennia l portions of rivers and streams identified with data developed by The Nature Conservancy 2006 Brown et al 1977 1981 and Miller 1954 The settlement data are from the Coalescent Communities Database (Wilcox et al 2003)

sloping land of Perry Mesa Third there are 350-km length and 30-km width The lack of setshyno perennial streams in the unoccupied zone tlement in this vast area suggests that the potenshybetween the inhabited tributaries of the Verde tial productivity of thi s biotic community may River and the Chavez Pass settlement Fourth have been less than surrounding areas In sum

the biotic community of the unoccupied zone is while the precipitation levels in the unoccupied classified as Petran Montaine Conifer Forest zone are relatively high (see Figure 29) this poshy(Brown et al 1979 The Nature Conservancy in tential productivity advantage was likely offset Arizona 2004) and it was virtualJy uninhabshy by characteristics that would have made farming ited from 1200 to 1450 throughout its roughly relatively risky

40

Elevation Profile of Unoccupied Zone 1 Middle Verde River to Chavez Pass

2500

en Qj Qi 2000 E c

1 1500 OJ middotm I

1000 I

0 20000 40 000 60000 80000

Distance in meters

Elevation Profile of Unoccupied Zone 2 Polles Mesa to Northern Tonto Basin (Rye Creek)

1400 1 1300

~

ill Q)

1200 E c 1100

1 OJ 1000 middotm I 900

800 0 10000 20000 30000

Distance in meters

Elevation Profile of Perry Mesa West to East Across middle of Perry Mesa

1300

~ 1200 Q)

ill 1100E c 1000

)f setshy1 900 rotenshy OJ middotm 800

sum 700 may I

upied s poshyoffset rming

0 5000 10000 15000

Distance in meters

FIGURE 212 Elevation profiles of unoccupied zones and Perry Mesa Calculated from United States Geolog ical Survey (2009) digital elevation models using ArcGIS 91

INGRAM

Unoccupied zone 2 between Polles Mesa and the northern Tonto Basin is characterized by incised and sloping topography (see Figure 212) that would have challenged successful maize cultivation The zone also lacks perennial riverine resources beyond the East Verde River near Polles Mesa It is also significant to note that settlements on Polles Mesa are located on the northwestern side of the mesa leaVing the entire eastern side of the mesa nearest Tonto Basin unoccupied This was not a defensive castle-like settlement configuration as obshyserved on Perry Mesa

Unoccupied zone 3 between Perry Mesa the lower Verde Valley and the Phoenix Basin was previously occupied Abandonment of this zone began sometime in the early 1100S and was apparently complete sometime in the late 1200S (Wilcox et al 2001a110 125) Two factors likely contributed to the abandonment of this zone

First water-related resource productivity is relatively low in this zone Between Perry Mesa and the Phoenix Basin there is a steep decline in annual precipitation and associated producshytivity In the roughly 60 km that separates the two areas precipitation drops about 50 percent (from 15 inches on Perry Mesa to 8 inches in the Phoenix Basin estern Regional Climate Center 2010) Areas ofsettlement abandonment along the lower Verde River are also in this zone of low preCipitation although access to the peshyrennial riverine resources along the lower Verde (the only perennial river in this zone) could have decreased the dependence on local precipitation Inspection of settlement patterning and precipshyitation contours throughout central Arizona reshyveals very few settlements in areas receiving less than 13 inches a year in average precipitation In fact no more than 2 percent of the populashytion from 1200 to 1450 lived in areas receiving on average less than 13 inches of precipitation annually This percentage includes people livshying next to perennial rivers but excludes those living next to the extensive irrigation systems along the lower Salt River in the Phoenix Basin people who would have been substantially less dependent on local rainfall Therefore the areas

receiving below 13 inches of annual precipitashytion form an extensive no-mans land with likely climatic and productivity origins For farmers occupying these areas declines in resource proshyductivity during the late 1200S very dry period (see Figure 28) may have prOVided a final push out of this zone 3

Second the abandonment of settlements that created this unoccupied zone occurred in the context of a significant sociocultural shift among the Hohokam referred to by archaeshyologists as the Sedentary to Classic transition This transition involved the abandonment of a region-wide system of ball courts and a varishyety of social architectural burial and material culture changes (Abbott et al 2007 Bayman 2001 Doyel 1980 1991 Fish 1989) Addressing the causes of the initiation of this unoccupied zone thus involves an understanding of the facshytors that contributed to the cultural transition (and is beyond the scope of this chapter) I note however that settlement abandonment in this zone was initiated as much as 200 years before settlement clustering on Perry Mesa The elapsed time about eight human generations does not support a clear relationship between settlement abandonment in this zone and the pulse of setshytlement on Perry Mesa

Settlement Clusters The most obvious settlement clusters visible in Figure 211 are on and around Perry Mesa and the group of settlements in Bloody Basin beshytween Perry Mesa and the Verde River In addishytion to the demographic and productive attracshytiveness of Perry Mesa and vicinity (preViously demonstrated) and proximity to the only perenshynial portion of the Agua Fria River settlement clustering on Perry Mesa was likely strongly affected by the extent of arable land available on the mesa Kruse-Peeples (Chapter 3 Kruse 2007) has demonstrated that on Perry Mesa the location of potentially arable land was a major factor in the placement and development of large residential sites Further research on the distribution of arable land throughout the censhytral Arizona region may yield similar results and demonstrate a strong relationship between the

42


pitashyiikely mers

~ proshyeriod push

nents ed in

I shift ~haeshy

ition nt of I varishy~ teFial

yman ~ssing

upied le facshy

ition [ note n this )efore lapsed es not ement of setshy

ible in sa and in beshyI addishyattracshyiously perenshyement rangly ailable Kruse ~ sa the major

ent of on the Ie censhyIts and

~ en the

extent of arable land and settlement locations Visual inspection of the distribution of land in the watersheds of central Arizona with slopes less than 10 percent (using GIS-generated maps not included here) reveals that if extensive gently sloping land was a criterion for successful and substantial cultivation then Perry Mesa was one perhaps the largest tract of unoccupied arable land in central Arizona in the late 1200S Perry Mesa is approximately 17 km from north to south and 11 km from west to east

The environmental conditions contributing to the selection of settlement locations southeast of Perry Mesa (the Bloody Basin area) are less obvious however Although some settlements are near perennial creeks most are not Precipishytation in this area averages 17 to 19 inches annushyally which is higher than on Perry Mesa Higher precipitation levels and associated groundwater conditions may have been sufficient for successshyful cultivation in these areas

Beyond the Perry Mesa and Bloody Basin settlement areas settlements are cl ustered mostly along the perennial Verde River and its tributaries and Tonto Creek The Verde has one of the highest discharge levels in central Arishyzona (United States Geological Survey 2010) ensuring access to water year-round and during dry periods Proximity to perennial rivers also offers extensive riparian resources and opporshytunities for irrigated and floodplain agriculshyture Beyond the Verde settlements within the northern Tonto Basin cluster are also preferenshytially located near riverine resources The largest pueblo in the cluster Rye Creek is positioned at the intersection of three intermittent creeks (Rye Deer and an unnamed creek) Current mapping also shows that the perennial portion of Deer Creek is less than 3 km from Rye Creek The other settlements in this cluster are located along the perennial Tonto Creek

In addition to proximity to perennial rivershyine resources settlements along the Verde River had several other productivity advantages First settlements on the eastern side of the Verde and along tributaries that originate at higher eleshyvations near the Mogollon Rim are in an ideal position to receive the benefits of pulses of

43

streamflow useful for runoff agriculture from summer monsoon storms Settlements on the eastern side of the river also had the benefits of warmer temperatures inherent in west-facing slopes Warmer temperatures could have offset the cooler temperatures that prevail in low-lying areas adjacent to higher elevations where cool air drains This offset could have lengthened the growing season and reduced the risk of frost damage to crops in these higher-elevation setshytlement areas Wilcox et al (200lb159) have argued that the absence of settlement along the western side of the Verde River suggests a defenshysive strategy The productivity advantages noted here may explain preferential settlement on the eastern side of the river

If dry conditions and the availability of arshyable land influenced decisions to cluster settleshyments in areas of relatively high productivity on and around Perry Mesa in the late 1200S why did this clustering persist as conditions improved in the early 1300S If as LeBlanc (199970) suggests resources are rapidly depleted in this nonopti shymal clustered configuration we should expect people to begin abandoning these configurashytions when conditions no longer require them If conflict and hostilities increased in the early 1300S Village clustering would have been an adshyvantageous defensive strategy In the absence of conflict clustering might have been maintained simply because there was no push out of this configuration during the 1300 to 1349 interval Rising productivity associated with the very wet period may have compensated for continued loshycalized resource utilization

Summary The unoccupied zones are primarily areas of relshyatively lower resource productivity than areas where settlements were clustered Avoiding settlement in relatively less productive areas is thus not an inefficient or nonoptimal stratshyegy (cf LeBlanc 199970) Dry-period declines in resource productivity would have made less proshyductive areas among the least desirable places to live Movement away from areas of relatively low productiVity when climate conditions that supshyport productivity decline such as during the late

INGRAM

1200S is a reasonable strategy for lessening the risk of shortfalls

Implications

This chapter has considered the factors that inshyfluenced population movements to Perry Mesa and central Arizona and the formation of setshytlement clusters and unoccupied zones on and around Perry Mesa Several implications arise from this analysis

First the identification of regional-scale inshyfluences and differences in potential resource productivity between settlement clusters and unoccupied zones establishes an interpretation of settlement patterns on and around Perry Mesa that does not invoke the influence of inshycreasing warfare the formation of political allishyances or a strategy of defense or offense against hostile neighbors This introduces a problem of equifinality associated with the settlement patshyterns used to support the warfare models That is multiple processes (warfare demography clishymate environment immigration) can result in the same settlement pattern Consequently subshystantiation of the warfare model will require that more weight be placed on the other supporting lines of evidence for increasing conflict (eg defensive site locations and architecture lineshyof-Sight connections hilltop forts or lookouts patterns of burned or abandoned settlements on the edges of clusters) Positing an increase in warfare during this critical period in central Arizona prehistory has important implications for how past sociocultural systems in the US Southwest are understood

Second warfare models that rely on setshytlement patterns as evidence must consider climate-related changes in resource productivshyity and inherent spatial heterogeneity in landshyscape productivity These factors can influence

Notes

1 Wilcox and Holmlund (200T94) later revised the date of initial occupation to apprOXimately

AD 1275

2 To simplify the correlation analyses in this section I do not log transform the annual

44

population movements and settlement location decisions that result in settlement clusters and unoccupied zones Further evaluation ofwarfare models in the US Southwest should focus on the productivity characteristics of other unocshycupied zones and areas where settlements were clustered Finding similar potential productivity in unoccupied zones and settlement clusters can strengthen the defensive interpretations ofa setshytlement pattern

Finally warfare and climatic explanations for the dramatic shifts in settlement patterns suffer from poor chronological resolution This poor resolution makes it difficult to discern the order of events which is critical for the separashytion of cause and effect For example the key element to consider with respect to unoccushypied zones is the root cause of their initial forshymation Once formed unoccupied zones likely would increase the energy costs of conflict and provide resources that could be periodically exshyploited by neighboring communities (LeBlanc 19992006) These benefits of unoccupied zones could have been the by-products or effects of the zones rather than the cause of their formation Moreover instead ofsettlement clustering being the result of alliances such clustering may have contributed to the formation of alliances beshycause ofgreater social interaction among neighshybors Similarly LeBlanc (1999) and Wilcox et al (2001b) use the formation of settlement clusters and unoccupied zones as evidence for a regionshyal-scale increase in conflict But if the formation of settlement clusters and unoccupied zones ocshycurred before other evidence of rising conflict then settlement clustering and the associated overexploitation of resources could have been a primary cause of any increase in conflict rather than the effect of it

va lues before ca leu lating correlations Log transformation is common in the verification

of the strength of the relationship between tree- ring indices and modern climate station data Transformation increases the strength of


Ition and

rfare is on nocshy

were ivity scan a setshy

ions

terns This

n the para-e key JCcushy

1 forshylikely tand Lyexshy

Blanc zones of the a tion

being

have ~s beshy

1eighshy~ et al Isters ~gionshy

l1ation les ocshy

Ii1 flict ( iated

been a rather

)g tion

O

Il ion gth of

the correlations by minimizing differences in 1981 Drainage Map of Arizona Showing Perenshythe absolute precipitation data values expected nial Streams and Some Important Wetlands based on elevation or other location differences Arizona Game and Fish Department map

3 While unoccupied zone 3 is increasingly disshy Brown David E Charles H Lowe and Charles P tant from the tree-ring chronologies of the San Pase

Francisco Peaks precipitation reconstruction 1979 A Digitized Classification System for the the late 1200S dry period is a regional-scale Biotic Communities of North America event extending throughout the Southwest with Community (Series) and Association (eg Cook et al 200Tlll) Examples for the Southwest Journal of

the Arizona-Nevada Academy ofScience References 14 (supp 1)1-16 Reprinted 1982 in Desert

Abbott David R Alexa M Smith and Emiliano Plants 4 (1-4) edited by David E Brown

Gallaga University of Arizona for the Boyce Thompshy

2007 Ballcourts and Ceramics The Case for Hoshy son Southwestern Arboretum Superior

hokam Marketplaces in the Arizona Desert Arizona

American Antiquity 72(3)461-484 Burns Barney Tillman

Adams E Charles 1983 Simulated Anasazi Storage Behavior Using 1998 Late Prehistory in the Middle Little Coloshy Crop Yields Reconstructed from Tree Rings

rado River Area A Regional Perspective In AD 652-1968 Unpublished PhD dissertashyMigration and Reorganization The Pueblo tion University of Arizona Tucson IV Period in the American Southwest edited Burton Ian Robert W Kates and Gilbert F White

by Katherine A Spielmann pp 53-63 1993 The Environment as Haza rd 2nd ed Guilshy

Anthropological Research Paper NO5 ford Press New York

Arizona State University Tempe Cameron Catherine M Ahlstrom Richard V N Carla R Van West and 1995 Migration and the Movement of SouthshyJeffrey S Dean western Peoples Journal ofAnthropological

1995 Environmental and Chronological Factors Archaeology 14104-124

in the Mesa Verde-Northern Rio Grande Cashdan Elizabeth

Migration Journal ofAnthropological Arshy 1985 Coping with Risks Reciprocity among the

chaeology 14125-142 Basarwa of Northern Botswana Man 20(3)

Anthony David W 454-474middot 1990 Migration in Archaeology The Baby and the 1990 Risk and Uncertainty in Tribal and Peasshy

Bathwater American Anthropologist 92(4) ant Economies Westview Press Boulder

895-914 Colorado Bayman James M Ciolek-Torrello Richard 2001 The Hohokam of Southwest North America 1997 Prehistoric Settlement and Demography in

Journal of World Prehistory 15257-311 the Lower Verde Region In Vanishing River

Braun David P and Stephen Plog Landscapes and Lives of the Lower Verde

1982 Evolution of Tribal Social Networks Valley edited by Stephanie M Whittlesey

Theory and Prehistoric North American Richard Ciolek-Torrello and Jeffrey H

Evidence American Antiquity 16301-313 Altschul pp 531-595 SRI Press Tucson Bright Jill L and John J Hervert Clark Jeffery j 2005 Adult and Fawn Mortality of Sonoran 2001 Tracking Prehistoric Migrations Pueblo

Pronghorn Wildlife Society Bulletin 33(1) Settlers among the Tonto Basin Hohokam

43-50 Anthropological Papers of the University of Brown David E Neil B Carmony and Raymond Arizona No 65 University of Arizona Press

M Turner Tucson

1977 Inventory of Riparian Habitats In Imporshy Clark Jeffery J Patrick D Lyons J Brett Hill

tance Preservation and Management of Anna A Neuzil and William H Doelle Riparian Habitat-a Symposium General 2008 Immigrants and Population Collapse in the

Technical Report No MR 43 US Forest Southern Southwest Archaeology Southwest

Service Fort Collins Colorado 22(4)1-15

45

INGRAlvl lrna

Colton Harold S Dean Jeffrey S 1946 The Sinagua A Summary of the Archaeology 2006 Subsistence Stress and Food Storage at Kiet

of the Region ofFlagstaff Arizona Bulletin Siet Northeas tern Arizona In EnvironshyNo 22 Museum of Northern Arizona Flagshy mental Change and Human Adap tation in staff the Ancient American Southwest edited by

Cook Edward R Keith R Briffa and Phillip D David E Doyel and Jeffrey S Dean pp 160shy

Jones 179 University of Utah Press Salt Lake City

1994 Spatial Regression Methods in Dendrocli shy Dean Jeffrey S Robert C Euler George J Gumershymatology A Review and Comparison of man Fred Plog Richard H Hevly and Thor N V Two Techniques International Journal of Karlstrom

Climatology 14 (41379 -402 1985 Human Behavior Demography and PaleoshyCook Edward R Richard Seager Mark A Cane environment on the Colorado Plateaus and David W Stahle American Antiquity 50537-554

2007 North American Drought Reconstructions Dean Jeffrey S and William J Robinson Causes and Consequences Earth-Science 1978 Expanded Tree-RingChronologiesfor th e Reviews 8193-134 Southwestern United States Chronology

Cordell Linda Series NO3 Laboratory ofTree-Ring Reshy

1975 Predicting Site Abandonment at Wetherill search University of Arizona Tucson

Mesa Kiva 40(3)189-202 1982 Dendrochronology of Grasshopper Pueblo

1995 Tracing Migration Pathways from the In Multidisciplinary Research at GrasshopshyReceiving End Journ al ofAnthropological per Pueblo Arizona edited by William A

Archaeology 14 203 -211 Longacre Sally J Holbrook and Michael

1997 Archaeology of th e Southwest 2nd ed Aca- W Graves Anthropological Papers of the demic Press San Diego University of Arizona No 40 University of

Cordell Linda S David E Doyel and Keith IV Arizona Press Tucson Kintigh DeBoer Warren R 1994 Processes of Aggregation in the Prehistoric 1981 Buffer Zones in the Cultural Ecology of

Southwest In Themes in Southwest PrehisshyAboriginal Amazonia An Ethnohistorical tory edited by G J Gumerman pp 109-134 Approach American Antiquity 46364-377shy

Advanced Seminar Series School of Amerishy Douglass Andrew E can Research Press Santa Fe 1929 The Secret of the Southwest Solved by

Cordell Linda S Carla R Van West Jeffrey S Talkative Tree-Rings National Geographic Dea n and Deborah A Muenchrath Magazine 56737-770

2007 Mesa Verde Settlement History and Reloshy Doyel David E cation Climate Change Social Networks 1980 Hohokam Social Organization and the and Ancestral Pueblo Migration Kiva 72(4) Sedentary to Classic Transition In Curshy391-417shy rent Issues in Hohokam Prehistory edited

Cowgill George L by David Doyel and Fred Plog pp 23-40

1975 On Causes and Consequences of Ancient Anthropological Research Papers No 23 and Modern Population Changes American Arizona State UniverSity Tempe

Anthropologist 77505-525 1991 Hohokam Exchange and Interaction In Crown Patricia L Chaco and Hohokam Prehistoric Regional 1994 The Salado Polychromes in Southwestern Systems in the American Southwest edited by

Prehistory In Ceramics and Ideology Salado P A Crown and J Judge pp 225-252 School Polychrome Pottery pp 211-225 University of American Research Press Santa Fe

of New Mexico Press Albuquerque 2000 The Santan Phase in the Phoenix Basin In Daly Christopher Ronald P Neilson and Donald The Hohokam Village Revisited edited by

L Phillips David E Doyel Suzanne K Fish a nd Paul R

1994 A Statistical-Topographic Model for Fish pp 221-244 Southwestern and Rocky Mapping Climatological Precipitation over Mountain Division of the American AssocishyMountainous Terrain Journal ofApplied ation for the Advancement of Science Fort Meteorology 33(2)140-158 Collins Colorado

46


~et

by 60shy

ity ner shyV

~o-

blo opshy

el he of

leal

cd ~ o

n

Ii al tted by chool

1 In l by Paul R Qcky L$socishyFort

Dunne Thomas and Luna B Leopold Hegmon Michelle 1978 Water in Environmental Planning vT H 1989 Risk Reduction and Variation in Agriculshy

Freeman New York tural Economics A Computer Simulation Euler Robert c George J Gumerman Thor N V of Hopi Agriculture Research in Economic Karlst rom Jeffrey S Dean and Richard H Hevly Anthropology 1189-121

1979 The Colorado Plateaus Cultural Dynamic 2000 The Archaeology of the Regional Interaction and Paleoenvironment Science 205(4411) Religion Warfare and Exchange across the 1089-1101 American Southwest University Press of

Fish Paul R Colorado Boulder 1989 The Hohokam 1000 Years of Prehistory in Herberle Rudolph

the Sonoran Desert In Dynamics ofSouthshy1938 The Causes of Rural-Urban Migration A west Prehistory edited by Linda S Cordell Survey of German Theories American Jourshyand George J Gumerman pp 19-63 Smithshy nal ofSociology 43(6)932-950 sonian Institution Press Washington DC Hill J Brett Jeffery J Clark William H Doelle

Fritts Harold C and Patrick D Lyons 1976 Tree Rings and Climate Academic Press 2004 Prehistoric Demography in the Southwest

London Migration Coalescence and Hohokam Gumerman George J (editor) Population Decline American Antiquity 1988 The Anasazi in a Changing Environment 69(4)689-716

Cambridge University Press Cambridge Hill James N and W Nicholas Trierweiler 1991 Exploring the Hoh okam Prehistoric Desert 1986 Prehistoric Responses to Food Stress on the

Peoples of the American Southwest Amerind Pajarito Plateau New Mexico Technical ReshyFoundation Publication University of New port and Results of the Pajarito ArchaeologishyMexico Albuquerque cal Research Project 1977-1985 Final Report

Hack John T to the National Science Foundation Manushy1942 The Changing Physical Environment of script on file Department of Anthropology

the Hopi Indians ofArizona Reports of University of California Los Angeles the Awatovi Expedition No1 Peabody Ingram Scott E Museum of American Archaeology and 2010 Human Vulnerability to Climatic Dry Ethnology Harvard University Cambridge Periods in the Prehistoric US Southwest

Halstead Paul and John OShea PhD dissertation Arizona State University 1989 Introduction Cultural Responses to Risk and Tempe University Microfilms Ann Arbor

Uncertainty In Bad Year Economics Cultural Michigan Respo nses to Risk and Uncertainty ed ited Jett Stephen C by Paul Halstead and John OShea pp 1-7 1964 Pueblo Indian Migrations An Evaluation of Cambridge University Press Cambridge the Possible Physical and Cultural Determishy

Hassan Fekri A nants American Antiquity 29(3)281-300

1981 Demographic Archaeology Academic Press Judge W James New York 1989 Chaco Canyon-San Juan Basin In Dyshy

Haury Emil W namics ofSouthwest Prehistory edited by 1958 Evidence at Point of Pines for Prehistoric Linda S Cordell and George J Gumerman

Migration from Northern Arizona In pp 209-261 Smithsonian Institution Press Migrations in New World Culture History Washington DC edited by Raymond H Thompson Univershy Kintigh Keith W Donna M Glowacki and Sity of Arizona Bulletin No 29 Social Scishy Deborah L Huntley ence Bulletin No 27 University ofArizona 2004 Long-Term Settlement History and the Press Tucson Emergence of Towns in the Zuni Area

1962 The Greater American Southwest In Courses American Antiquity 69(3)432-456

toward Urban Life Archeological ConsidershyKohler Timothy A ations ofSome Cultural Alternates edited by 1993 News from the Northern American SouthshyRobert J Braidwood and Gord on R Willey west Prehistory on the Edge of Chaos Jourshypp 106-131 Aldine Chicago nal ofArchaeological Research 1(4)267-321

47

INGRAM

Kohler Timothy A and Lynne Sebastian

1996 Population Aggregation in the Prehistoric North American Southwest American Antiquity 61597-602

Kohler Timothy A Mark D Varien Aaron

Wright and K A Kuckelman 2008 Mesa Verde Migrations American Scientist

96(2)146 Kowalewski Stephen A 2001 Coalescent Societies Paper presented at the

58th Annual Southeastern Archaeological Conference Chattanooga Tennessee

Kruse Melissa

2005 The Agricultural Landscape of Perry Mesa

Central Arizona Unpublished Masters

thesis Arizona State University Tempe

2007 The Agricultural Landscape of Perry Mesa Modeling Residential Site Location in Relashy

tion to Arable Land Kiva 73(1)85-102

LeBlanc Steven A

1999 Prehistoric Warfare in the American Southshywest University of Utah Press Salt Lake City

2006 Warfare and the Development of Social

Complexity Some Demographic and Environmental Factors In The Archaeolshyogy of Warfare Prehistories ofRaiding and Conquest edited by Elizabeth N Arkush

and Mark W Allen pp 437-468 University Press of Florida Gainesville

LeBlanc Steven A and Glen E Rice

2001 Southwestern Warfare The Value of Case

Studies In Deadly Landscapes Case Studies in Prehistoric Southwestern Warfare edited

by Glen E Rice and Steven A LeBlanc pp 1shy18 University of Utah Press Salt Lake City

Lee Everett S

1966 A Theory of Migration Demography 3A7-57 Leonard Robert D and Heidi E Reed

1993 Population Aggregation in the Prehistoric American Southwest A Selectionist Model

American Antiquity 58(4)648-661 Levitt j

1980 Responses of Plants to Environmental Stresses Vol 2 Academic Press New York

Lipe William D

1995 The Depopulation of the Northern San juan

Conditions in the Turbulent 1200S Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology 14143-169

Longacre William A

1966 Changing Patterns of Social I ntegration A Prehistoric Example from the American

Southwest American Anthropologist 68(1)

94-102

48

Martin Paul S and Christine R Szuter

1999 War Zones and Game Sinks in Lewis and Clark s West Conservation Biology 13(1)

36-45middot Meko David Edward R Cook David W Stahle

Charles W Stockton and Malcolm K Hughes

1993 Spatial Patterns of Tree-Growth Anomalies in the United States and Southeastern Canshy

ada Journal ofClimate 6(9)1773-1786

Miller Robert Rush

1954 A Drainage Map of Arizona Systematic Zoology 3(2)81

Minnis Paul E

1985 Social Adaptation to Food Stress A Prehisshytoric Southwestern Example University of

Chicago Press Chicago Muenchrath Deborah A and Ricardo j Salvador

1995 Maize Productivity and Agroecology Efshyfects of Environment and Agricultural Pracshy

tices on the Biology of Maize In Soil Water Biology and Belief in Prehistoric and Tradishytional Southwestern Agriculture edited by

H S Toll pp 303-333 Special Publication Vol 2 New Mexico Archaeological Council

Albuquerque National Cl imatic Data Center

2006 Mean Length of the Freeze Free Period Gis Data for Arizona Electronic document httpwwwncdcnoaagovoancdchtml

accessed july 2006

2009 US Division Data Electronic document

httpwwwncdcnoaagovoaclimateon lineproddroughtxmgrhtm accessed May

2009middot 2010 Historic Normals Electronic document

http lw fncdc noa a gov loaIeli rna telnor mals lusnormalshisthtml accessed May

2010

Orcutt janet D

1991 Environmental Variability and Settlement

Changes on the Pajarito Plateau New Mexshy

ico American Antiquity 56315-332 Ortiz Sutti

1979 Expectations and Forecasts in the Face of Uncertainty Man 14(1)64-80

Plog Fred George j Gumerman Robert C Euler

jeffrey S Dean Richard H Hevl) and Thor N V

Karlstrom

1988 Anasazi Adaptive Strategies The Model Predictions and Results In The Anasazi in

a Changing Environment edited b) George j Gumerman pp 230-276 Cambridge Unishy

versit) Press Cambridge


ies Inshy

shy

dor

imiddot racshyil ter dishyby

Gis

11

In

Iay

I

en t

icxshy

of

u ler

v

i in

rge Uni-

PRISM Climate Group Oregon State University environmental Analyses for the US 89 Projshy

2007 Average Annual Precipitat ion 1961 through ect Area In Sunset Crater Archaeology The 1990 Electronic document httpwww History of a lIolcanic Landscape edited by

prismclimateorg accessed December 2007 Mark D Elson pp 103-131 Anthropological

through the Natural Resources Conserva shy Papers No 33 Center for Desert Archaeolshytion Service National Geospatial Dataset ogy Tucson

http wwwncgcnrcsusdagov Salzer Matthew wand Kurt F Kipfmueller 2010 Prism Climate Group Electronic document 2005 Reconstructed Temperature and Precipitashy

http wwwprismclimateorg accessed May tion on a Millennial Timescale from Treeshy2010 Rings in the Southern Colorado Plateau

Rautman Alison E USA Climatic Change 70(3h65-487 1993 Resource Variability Risk and the Structure Sandor Jonathan A Jay B Norton Jeffrey A

of Social Networks An Example from the Homburg Deborah A Muenchrath Carleton S Prehistoric Southwest American Antiquity White Stephen E Williams Celeste I Havener

58(3h03-424middot and Peter D Stahl

Redman Charles 1 2007 Biogeochemical Studies of a Native Amerishy

1993 The Past Revisited In People of the Tonto can Runoff Agroecosystem Geoarchaeology Rim edited by Charles 1 Redman pp 155- 22(31359-386 173 Smithsonian Institution Press Nashshy Schlanger Sarah H ington DC 1988 Patterns of Population Movement and Longshy

Reid J Jefferson Term Population Growth in Southwestern

1989 A Grasshopper Perspective on the Mogollon Colorado American Antiquity 53773-793

of the Arizona Mountains In Dynamics of Seaber Paul R F Paul Kapinos and George 1 Southwestern Prehistory edited by Linda S Knapp Cordell and George J Gumerman pp 65-97- 1987 Hydrologic Unit Maps Water-Supply Paper Smithsonian Institution Press Washingshy No 2294 US Geological Survey Denver ton DC Colorado

Reid J Jefferson and Stephanie M Whittlesey Slatter Edwin D

1997 The Archaeology ofAncient Arizona Univershy 1979 Drought and Demographic Change in the sity of Arizona Press Tucson Prehistoric Southwest United States A

Rice Glen E Preliminary Quantitative Assessment PhD

2001 Warfare and Massing in the Salt and Gila dissertation University of California Los Basins of Central Arizona In Deadly LandshyAngeles University Microfilms Ann Arbor scapes Case Studies in Prehistoric SouthshyMichigan western Warfare edited by Glen E Rice and Stark Miriam T Jeffery J Clark and Mark D Elson

Steven A LeBlanc pp 289-330 University 1995 Causes and Consequences of Migration in of Utah Press Salt Lake City the 13th Century Tonto Basin Journal of

Rose Martin R Anthropological Archaeology 14212-246

1994 Long Term Drought Reconstructions for Steeves Peter and Douglas Nebert (USGS) the Lake Roosevelt Region In The Roosevelt 1994 J250000-Scale Hydrologic Units of the Rural Sites Study 11013 Ch anging Land Use United States Electronic document http in the Tonto Ba sin edited by Richard Ciolekshy waterusgsgovGISmetadata usgswrd X ML Torrello and John R Welch pp 311-359 hUC250kxmlIdentification_Information Technical Series No 28 Statistical Research accessed May 2008 Tucson Tainter Joseph A and Bonnie Bagley Tainter

Sal zer MatthewW 1996 Evolving Complexity and Environmental Risk 2000 Dendroclimatology in the San Francisco in the Prehistoric Southwest Santa Fe Insti shy

Peaks Region ofNorthern Arizona USA tu te Studies in the Sciences of Complexity PhD dissertation University of Arizona No 24 Addison-Wesley Reading MassashyTucson University Microfilm s Ann Arbor chusetts Michigan The Nature Conservancy in Arizona

Salzer Matthew W and Jeffrey S Dean Z004 Digital Representation of Brown and Lowes 2006 Dendroclimatic Reconstructions and Paleo- Biotic Communities of the Southwest Map

49

INGRAM

(1979) Electronic document http azconser vationorgdownloadsdatabiotic_commun it ies_ oCthe_sou thwest_gis_data accessed

January 2005

2006 Arizona Statewide Freshwater Assessment Gis Data Package Electronic document httpazconservationorgprojectswater accessed February 2008

United States Geological Survey (USGS) 2009 Digital Elevation Models Electronic

docu ment httpearthexplorer usgsgov accessed June 2009

2010 Water Data for the Nation Electronic document httpwaterdatausgsgovnwis accessed March 2010

Upham Steadman 1982 Polities and Power An Economic and Politishy

cal History ofthe Western Pueblo Academic Press New York

Van West Carla R and Jeffrey H Altschul 1994 Agricultural Productivity and Carrying Cashy

pacity in the Tonto Basin In Roosevelt Rural Sites Study Vol 3 Changing Land Use in the Tonto Basin edited by R S Ciolek-Torrello and J R Welch pp 361-435 Technical Series No 28 Statistical Research Tucson

Van West Carla R Richard S Ciolek-Torrello John R Welch Jeffrey H Altschul Karen R Adams Steven D Shelley and Jeffrey A Homburg 2000 Subsistence and Environmental Interactions

In Salado edited by Jeffrey S Dean pp 27-56

Amerind Foundation Publication University of New Mexico Press Albuquerque

Van West Carla R and Jeffrey S Dean 2000 Environmental Characteristics of the

AD 900-1300 Period in the Central Mesa Verde Region Kiva 66(1)19-44

Varien Mark D William D Lipe Michael A Adler Ian M Thompson and Bruce A Bradley 1996 Southwestern Colorado and Southeastern

Utah Settlement Patterns AD 1100 to 1300

In The Prehistoric Pueblo World AD 1150 to 1350 edited by Michael A Adler pp 86-113

University of Arizona Press Tucson Varien Mark D Scott G Ortman Timothy A Kohler Donna M Glowacki and C David Johnson 2007 Historical Ecology in the Mesa Verde Reshy

gion Results from the Village Ecodynamics Project American Antiquity 72(2)273-299

Wallace Henry D and William H Doelle 2001 Classic Period Warfare in Southern Arizona

In Deadly Landscapes Case Studies in Preshy

historic Southwestern Warfare edited by Glen E Rice and Steven A LeBlanc Univershysity of Utah Press Salt Lake City

vVestern Regional Climate Center (WRCC) 2010 Historical Climate Information Electronic

document httpwwwwrccdrieduacshycessed January 2010

Whyte Anne V T 1985 Perception In Climate Impact Assessmentshy

Studies ofthe Interaction of Climate and Society edited by Robert W Kates Jesse H Ausubel and Mimi Berberian John Wiley Chichester UK

Wiessner Polly 1982 Beyond Willow Smoke and Dogs Tails A

Comment on Binfords Analysis of Hunter Gatherer Settlement Systems American Antiquity 47171-178

Wilcox David R 1981 Changing Perspectives on the Protohistoric

Pueblos AD 1450-1700 In The Protohistoric Period in the North American Southwest AD 1450-1700 edited by David R Wilcox and William B Masse pp 378-409 Anthroposhylogical Research Paper No 24 Arizona State UniverSity Tempe

2005 Perry Mesa and Its World Plateau 2(1)

24-35middot

Wilcox David R William H Doelle J Brett Hill and James P Holmlund 2003 Coalescent Communities GIS Database

Museum of Northern Arizona Center for Desert Archaeology Geo-Map Inc On file Center for Desert Archaeology Tucson

Wilcox David R David A Gregory and J Brett Hill 2007 Zuni in the Puebloan and Southwestern

Worlds In Zuni Origins Toward a New Synshythesis ofSouthwestern Archaeology edited by David A Gregory and David R Wilcox pp 165-209 University of Arizona Press Tucson

Wilcox David R and Jonathan Haas 1994 The Scream of the Butterfly Competition

and Conflict in the Prehistoric Southwest In Themes in Southwest Prehistory edited by G J Gumerman pp 211-238 School of American Research Press Santa Fe

Vilcox David R and James P Holmlund

2007 The Archaeology ofPerry Mesa and Its World Occasional Papers NO3 Bilby Reshysearch Center Northern Arizona University Flagstaff

50


ivershy

)nic

mtshy

e H iley

A nter

Itoric ito ric

st

Dxand poshy

a State

Hill

5e

r for In file

In flt tt Hill rn gtw Synshyt ited cox

ilion est

ited

~ ol of

Reshyliversity

Wilcox David R Gerald R Robertson Jr and J Scott Wood 200la Antecedents to Perry Mesa Early Pueblo

III Defensive Refuge Systems in Western Central Arizona In Deadly Landscapes Case Studies in Prehistoric Southwestern Warfare edited by Glen E Rice and Steven A LeBlanc pp 109-140 University of Utah Press Salt Lake City

2001b Organized for War The Perry Mesa Settleshy

ment System and Its Central Arizona Neighshybors In Deadly Landscapes Case Studies in Prehistoric Southwestern Warfare edited by Glen E Rice and Steven A LeBlanc Univershy

sity of Utah Press Salt Lake City vVinterhalder Bruce

1986 Optimal Foraging Simulation Studies of Diet Choice in a Stochastic Environment Journal ofEthnobiology 6205-223

51

a It CHAPTER 2

~ ileshyte ighshy~es in ted

Salt

In ~( iety

11 and

the and 10f

orthshy~ Peril

r South shyark D middot101

Climatic Demographic and

Environmental Influences on

Central Arizona Settlement Patterns

SCOTT E INGRAM

This chapter addresses two distinct but related research questions First why did so many people move to Perry Mesa during the late thirshyteenth and early fourteenth centuries Second what factors influenced the formation of settleshyment clusters and unoccupied zones around Perry Mesa I approach these questions from a landscape perspective (see Chapter 1) considershying regional-scale climatic environmental and demographic influences on settlement patterns on and around Perry Mesa

It is important to investigate these settlement patterns because they are an integral part of the Verde Confederacy model a prominent case study of endemic warfare and alliance formation in the late prehistoric Southwest (Wilcox 2005 Wilcox et al 2001b) Settlement patterns are the clearest and strongest indirect evidence used to infer prehistoric warfare in the Southwest (LeshyBlanc 199943-44) Thus investigating factors influencing settlement patterns will advance our understanding of the settlement of Perry Mesa as well as the events of this critical period in prehistory

The purpose of this research is not to chalshylenge the Verde Confederacy model or to argue for the absence of warfare and alliances Evishydence of climatic demographic and environshymental influences on settlement patterns does

23

not preclude a coincident rise in warfare or the formation of alliances Multiple models and working hypotheses of factors that influenced the settlement patterns of Perry Mesa and the rest of central Arizona are essential Results from testing these models and hypotheses adshyvance our understanding of the influence ofwarshyfare demography climate and environment on human behavior

To understand why so many people moved to Perry Mesa I investigated regional-scale clishymatic demographic and environmental condishytions that likely pushed and pulled people to Perry Mesa I focus on regional-scale conditions because the pulse of settlement on Perry Mesa was coincident with unprecedented settlement and social changes occurring throughout the US Southwest Most important population inshycreases on Perry Mesa were not unique but part of a massive influx of immigrants moving from northeastern Arizona toward central Arizona during the late 1200S and early 1300S I argue that dry-period declines in resource productivshyity contributed to the push out of northeastern Arizona and that the arrival of these immishygrants contributed to the reorganization of exshyisting settlement patterns in central Arizona I demonstrate the relative demographic and envishyronmental attractiveness of Perry Mesa and the

INGRAM Climatj(






Study Area






24

F ~middot bull



1 _ --

~Lower San Juan






te rshed ) idenshy



nes

hods

ldopting the deshy








J - I


o 150 kmN


- 1

~_







25


INGRAM




26






and l can ocial ll)

riods rease

ptive into


middotffecshy

Lipe

area

Inual

shed nter-

Ige as


n the [cent

~es in thus

ra tes )atashy

2007 - the

Ilpreshy


datashy


oms




















27





















INGRAM




28






20 con- cshy

g (eg 1sect 15

0 1975 (3 10

~et al D- 5





=amshyif)

ill 25i1 has L

U c 20 C

is an lated 0 15

2989) 10a gion

(3

~ 5 D-Jurce

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985






29





INGRAM

() ltJ) c (J 20

~

C 0 15

~ 6 10 (3 ltJ)

Q 5





() 30 Q)

lt 25(J

S C 20 0

2 15 6 0 10 ~ a

5

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 -

-








30


he

(ation ondishy




Perry

many




31




1250 to 1299

1300 101349

Depopulation





ltf) (j) 20


D- 4 1200 1210 1220 1230 1240 1250 1260 1270 1280 1290 1300 1310 1320 1330 1340 1350










33

INGRAM

if)

20Q) L ()

f 16 C Q sect

12

0 u 8 Q)

0 4

1200 1210 1220 1230 1240 1250 1260 1270 1280 1290 1300 1310 1320 1330 1340 1350








Arizona 4 187


Arizona 2 146

Arizona 7 142

Arizona 6 98

Arizona 1 96

Arizona 5 47


Center (2009)



34




I


0

led by or reshy





1siders -ondishy



35

2









Agua Fria 156 6355 427 07 223 1937 30 52

Canyon Diablo 146 3098 569 18 81 1140 37 39

Carrizo 187 1786 505 28 67 555 31 60

Chevelon Canyon 146 2219 219 10 146 350 16 91

Chinle 146 10565 2700 26 56 175 02 730

Corn-Oraibi 146 2236 1900 85 17 1200 54 27

Cottonwood Wash 146 4 140 666 16 91 765 18 81

Dinnebito Wash 146 1927 110 06 243

Jeddito Wash 146 2734 2775 102 14 3175 16 13

Leroux Wash 146 2103 1335 63 23



Lower Puerco 146 2829 1085 38 38 875 31 47


Lower San Juan 146 6214 682 11 133

Lower Verde 156 5019 1764 35 45 3318 66 24


Moenkopi Wash 146 6776 785 12 122

Polacca Wash 146 2780 2925 105 14 2400 86 17

Silver 146 2440 1222 50 29 1010 41 36

Tonto 187 2694 2221 82 23 1444 54 35


Upper Salt 187 5612 3701 66 28 4922 88 21

Upper Verde 156 6372 1 115 17 92 1667 26 60

White 187 1703 430 25 75 800 47 40



(f) (J)

s 20 () c 16 c-Q 12 sect 0 8 (3

2 4 (L

1200 1225 1250 1275 1300 1325 1350 1375 1400 1425 1450 Wet period










37

INGRAM









38


)99 I In

15) les

mal set-



rdell rudy ider

ases

hese and sses [Tom

uce tfalls ccushy

here Iand

~ surshyj Ig in (eg



nts in nsive







39





INGRAM




40


2500

en Qj Qi 2000 E c

1 1500 OJ middotm I

1000 I

0 20000 40 000 60000 80000

Distance in meters


1400 1 1300

~

ill Q)

1200 E c 1100


800 0 10000 20000 30000

Distance in meters


1300

~ 1200 Q)

ill 1100E c 1000


sum 700 may I


0 5000 10000 15000

Distance in meters


INGRAM







42


pitashyiikely mers

~ proshyeriod push

nents ed in

I shift ~haeshy


yman ~ssing

upied le facshy




~ en the





43




INGRAM


Implications




Notes


AD 1275


44






Ition and

rfare is on nocshy


ions

terns This




being

have ~s beshy


l1ation les ocshy

Ii1 flict ( iated

been a rather

)g tion

O

Il ion gth of





























M Turner Tucson





45

INGRAlvl lrna


























46


~et

by 60shy

ity ner shyV

~o-

blo opshy

el he of

leal

cd ~ o

n

Ii al tted by chool





















47

INGRAM







Kruse Melissa






LeBlanc Steven A









Lee Everett S





Lipe William D



Longacre William A



94-102

48







Miller Robert Rush


Minnis Paul E








accessed july 2006





2010

Orcutt janet D







Karlstrom





ies Inshy

shy

dor


Gis

11

In

Iay

I

en t

icxshy

of

u ler

v

i in

rge Uni-

























49

INGRAM


January 2005































24-35middot









50


ivershy

)nic

mtshy

e H iley

A nter

Itoric ito ric

st

Dxand poshy

a State

Hill

5e

r for In file


ilion est

ited

~ ol of

Reshyliversity







51

INGRAM Climatj(






Study Area






24

F ~middot bull



1 _ --

~Lower San Juan






te rshed ) idenshy



nes

hods

ldopting the deshy








J - I


o 150 kmN


- 1

~_







25


INGRAM




26






and l can ocial ll)

riods rease

ptive into


middotffecshy

Lipe

area

Inual

shed nter-

Ige as


n the [cent

~es in thus

ra tes )atashy

2007 - the

Ilpreshy


datashy


oms




















27





















INGRAM




28






20 con- cshy

g (eg 1sect 15

0 1975 (3 10

~et al D- 5





=amshyif)

ill 25i1 has L

U c 20 C

is an lated 0 15

2989) 10a gion

(3

~ 5 D-Jurce

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985






29





INGRAM

() ltJ) c (J 20

~

C 0 15

~ 6 10 (3 ltJ)

Q 5





() 30 Q)

lt 25(J

S C 20 0

2 15 6 0 10 ~ a

5

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 -

-








30


he

(ation ondishy




Perry

many




31




1250 to 1299

1300 101349

Depopulation





ltf) (j) 20


D- 4 1200 1210 1220 1230 1240 1250 1260 1270 1280 1290 1300 1310 1320 1330 1340 1350










33

INGRAM

if)

20Q) L ()

f 16 C Q sect

12

0 u 8 Q)

0 4

1200 1210 1220 1230 1240 1250 1260 1270 1280 1290 1300 1310 1320 1330 1340 1350








Arizona 4 187


Arizona 2 146

Arizona 7 142

Arizona 6 98

Arizona 1 96

Arizona 5 47


Center (2009)



34




I


0

led by or reshy





1siders -ondishy



35

2









Agua Fria 156 6355 427 07 223 1937 30 52

Canyon Diablo 146 3098 569 18 81 1140 37 39

Carrizo 187 1786 505 28 67 555 31 60

Chevelon Canyon 146 2219 219 10 146 350 16 91

Chinle 146 10565 2700 26 56 175 02 730

Corn-Oraibi 146 2236 1900 85 17 1200 54 27

Cottonwood Wash 146 4 140 666 16 91 765 18 81

Dinnebito Wash 146 1927 110 06 243

Jeddito Wash 146 2734 2775 102 14 3175 16 13

Leroux Wash 146 2103 1335 63 23



Lower Puerco 146 2829 1085 38 38 875 31 47


Lower San Juan 146 6214 682 11 133

Lower Verde 156 5019 1764 35 45 3318 66 24


Moenkopi Wash 146 6776 785 12 122

Polacca Wash 146 2780 2925 105 14 2400 86 17

Silver 146 2440 1222 50 29 1010 41 36

Tonto 187 2694 2221 82 23 1444 54 35


Upper Salt 187 5612 3701 66 28 4922 88 21

Upper Verde 156 6372 1 115 17 92 1667 26 60

White 187 1703 430 25 75 800 47 40



(f) (J)

s 20 () c 16 c-Q 12 sect 0 8 (3

2 4 (L

1200 1225 1250 1275 1300 1325 1350 1375 1400 1425 1450 Wet period










37

INGRAM









38


)99 I In

15) les

mal set-



rdell rudy ider

ases

hese and sses [Tom

uce tfalls ccushy

here Iand

~ surshyj Ig in (eg



nts in nsive







39





INGRAM




40


2500

en Qj Qi 2000 E c

1 1500 OJ middotm I

1000 I

0 20000 40 000 60000 80000

Distance in meters


1400 1 1300

~

ill Q)

1200 E c 1100


800 0 10000 20000 30000

Distance in meters


1300

~ 1200 Q)

ill 1100E c 1000


sum 700 may I


0 5000 10000 15000

Distance in meters


INGRAM







42


pitashyiikely mers

~ proshyeriod push

nents ed in

I shift ~haeshy


yman ~ssing

upied le facshy




~ en the





43




INGRAM


Implications




Notes


AD 1275


44






Ition and

rfare is on nocshy


ions

terns This




being

have ~s beshy


l1ation les ocshy

Ii1 flict ( iated

been a rather

)g tion

O

Il ion gth of





























M Turner Tucson





45

INGRAlvl lrna


























46


~et

by 60shy

ity ner shyV

~o-

blo opshy

el he of

leal

cd ~ o

n

Ii al tted by chool





















47

INGRAM







Kruse Melissa






LeBlanc Steven A









Lee Everett S





Lipe William D



Longacre William A



94-102

48







Miller Robert Rush


Minnis Paul E








accessed july 2006





2010

Orcutt janet D







Karlstrom





ies Inshy

shy

dor


Gis

11

In

Iay

I

en t

icxshy

of

u ler

v

i in

rge Uni-

























49

INGRAM


January 2005































24-35middot









50


ivershy

)nic

mtshy

e H iley

A nter

Itoric ito ric

st

Dxand poshy

a State

Hill

5e

r for In file


ilion est

ited

~ ol of

Reshyliversity







51



1 _ --

~Lower San Juan






te rshed ) idenshy



nes

hods

ldopting the deshy








J - I


o 150 kmN


- 1

~_







25


INGRAM




26






and l can ocial ll)

riods rease

ptive into


middotffecshy

Lipe

area

Inual

shed nter-

Ige as


n the [cent

~es in thus

ra tes )atashy

2007 - the

Ilpreshy


datashy


oms




















27





















INGRAM




28






20 con- cshy

g (eg 1sect 15

0 1975 (3 10

~et al D- 5





=amshyif)

ill 25i1 has L

U c 20 C

is an lated 0 15

2989) 10a gion

(3

~ 5 D-Jurce

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985






29





INGRAM

() ltJ) c (J 20

~

C 0 15

~ 6 10 (3 ltJ)

Q 5





() 30 Q)

lt 25(J

S C 20 0

2 15 6 0 10 ~ a

5

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 -

-








30


he

(ation ondishy




Perry

many




31




1250 to 1299

1300 101349

Depopulation





ltf) (j) 20


D- 4 1200 1210 1220 1230 1240 1250 1260 1270 1280 1290 1300 1310 1320 1330 1340 1350










33

INGRAM

if)

20Q) L ()

f 16 C Q sect

12

0 u 8 Q)

0 4

1200 1210 1220 1230 1240 1250 1260 1270 1280 1290 1300 1310 1320 1330 1340 1350








Arizona 4 187


Arizona 2 146

Arizona 7 142

Arizona 6 98

Arizona 1 96

Arizona 5 47


Center (2009)



34




I


0

led by or reshy





1siders -ondishy



35

2









Agua Fria 156 6355 427 07 223 1937 30 52

Canyon Diablo 146 3098 569 18 81 1140 37 39

Carrizo 187 1786 505 28 67 555 31 60

Chevelon Canyon 146 2219 219 10 146 350 16 91

Chinle 146 10565 2700 26 56 175 02 730

Corn-Oraibi 146 2236 1900 85 17 1200 54 27

Cottonwood Wash 146 4 140 666 16 91 765 18 81

Dinnebito Wash 146 1927 110 06 243

Jeddito Wash 146 2734 2775 102 14 3175 16 13

Leroux Wash 146 2103 1335 63 23



Lower Puerco 146 2829 1085 38 38 875 31 47


Lower San Juan 146 6214 682 11 133

Lower Verde 156 5019 1764 35 45 3318 66 24


Moenkopi Wash 146 6776 785 12 122

Polacca Wash 146 2780 2925 105 14 2400 86 17

Silver 146 2440 1222 50 29 1010 41 36

Tonto 187 2694 2221 82 23 1444 54 35


Upper Salt 187 5612 3701 66 28 4922 88 21

Upper Verde 156 6372 1 115 17 92 1667 26 60

White 187 1703 430 25 75 800 47 40



(f) (J)

s 20 () c 16 c-Q 12 sect 0 8 (3

2 4 (L

1200 1225 1250 1275 1300 1325 1350 1375 1400 1425 1450 Wet period










37

INGRAM









38


)99 I In

15) les

mal set-



rdell rudy ider

ases

hese and sses [Tom

uce tfalls ccushy

here Iand

~ surshyj Ig in (eg



nts in nsive







39





INGRAM




40


2500

en Qj Qi 2000 E c

1 1500 OJ middotm I

1000 I

0 20000 40 000 60000 80000

Distance in meters


1400 1 1300

~

ill Q)

1200 E c 1100


800 0 10000 20000 30000

Distance in meters


1300

~ 1200 Q)

ill 1100E c 1000


sum 700 may I


0 5000 10000 15000

Distance in meters


INGRAM







42


pitashyiikely mers

~ proshyeriod push

nents ed in

I shift ~haeshy


yman ~ssing

upied le facshy




~ en the





43




INGRAM


Implications




Notes


AD 1275


44






Ition and

rfare is on nocshy


ions

terns This




being

have ~s beshy


l1ation les ocshy

Ii1 flict ( iated

been a rather

)g tion

O

Il ion gth of





























M Turner Tucson





45

INGRAlvl lrna


























46


~et

by 60shy

ity ner shyV

~o-

blo opshy

el he of

leal

cd ~ o

n

Ii al tted by chool





















47

INGRAM







Kruse Melissa






LeBlanc Steven A









Lee Everett S





Lipe William D



Longacre William A



94-102

48







Miller Robert Rush


Minnis Paul E








accessed july 2006





2010

Orcutt janet D







Karlstrom





ies Inshy

shy

dor


Gis

11

In

Iay

I

en t

icxshy

of

u ler

v

i in

rge Uni-

























49

INGRAM


January 2005































24-35middot









50


ivershy

)nic

mtshy

e H iley

A nter

Itoric ito ric

st

Dxand poshy

a State

Hill

5e

r for In file


ilion est

ited

~ ol of

Reshyliversity







51

INGRAM




26






and l can ocial ll)

riods rease

ptive into


middotffecshy

Lipe

area

Inual

shed nter-

Ige as


n the [cent

~es in thus

ra tes )atashy

2007 - the

Ilpreshy


datashy


oms




















27





















INGRAM




28






20 con- cshy

g (eg 1sect 15

0 1975 (3 10

~et al D- 5





=amshyif)

ill 25i1 has L

U c 20 C

is an lated 0 15

2989) 10a gion

(3

~ 5 D-Jurce

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985






29





INGRAM

() ltJ) c (J 20

~

C 0 15

~ 6 10 (3 ltJ)

Q 5





() 30 Q)

lt 25(J

S C 20 0

2 15 6 0 10 ~ a

5

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 -

-








30


he

(ation ondishy




Perry

many




31




1250 to 1299

1300 101349

Depopulation





ltf) (j) 20


D- 4 1200 1210 1220 1230 1240 1250 1260 1270 1280 1290 1300 1310 1320 1330 1340 1350










33

INGRAM

if)

20Q) L ()

f 16 C Q sect

12

0 u 8 Q)

0 4

1200 1210 1220 1230 1240 1250 1260 1270 1280 1290 1300 1310 1320 1330 1340 1350








Arizona 4 187


Arizona 2 146

Arizona 7 142

Arizona 6 98

Arizona 1 96

Arizona 5 47


Center (2009)



34




I


0

led by or reshy





1siders -ondishy



35

2









Agua Fria 156 6355 427 07 223 1937 30 52

Canyon Diablo 146 3098 569 18 81 1140 37 39

Carrizo 187 1786 505 28 67 555 31 60

Chevelon Canyon 146 2219 219 10 146 350 16 91

Chinle 146 10565 2700 26 56 175 02 730

Corn-Oraibi 146 2236 1900 85 17 1200 54 27

Cottonwood Wash 146 4 140 666 16 91 765 18 81

Dinnebito Wash 146 1927 110 06 243

Jeddito Wash 146 2734 2775 102 14 3175 16 13

Leroux Wash 146 2103 1335 63 23



Lower Puerco 146 2829 1085 38 38 875 31 47


Lower San Juan 146 6214 682 11 133

Lower Verde 156 5019 1764 35 45 3318 66 24


Moenkopi Wash 146 6776 785 12 122

Polacca Wash 146 2780 2925 105 14 2400 86 17

Silver 146 2440 1222 50 29 1010 41 36

Tonto 187 2694 2221 82 23 1444 54 35


Upper Salt 187 5612 3701 66 28 4922 88 21

Upper Verde 156 6372 1 115 17 92 1667 26 60

White 187 1703 430 25 75 800 47 40



(f) (J)

s 20 () c 16 c-Q 12 sect 0 8 (3

2 4 (L

1200 1225 1250 1275 1300 1325 1350 1375 1400 1425 1450 Wet period










37

INGRAM









38


)99 I In

15) les

mal set-



rdell rudy ider

ases

hese and sses [Tom

uce tfalls ccushy

here Iand

~ surshyj Ig in (eg



nts in nsive







39





INGRAM




40


2500

en Qj Qi 2000 E c

1 1500 OJ middotm I

1000 I

0 20000 40 000 60000 80000

Distance in meters


1400 1 1300

~

ill Q)

1200 E c 1100


800 0 10000 20000 30000

Distance in meters


1300

~ 1200 Q)

ill 1100E c 1000


sum 700 may I


0 5000 10000 15000

Distance in meters


INGRAM







42


pitashyiikely mers

~ proshyeriod push

nents ed in

I shift ~haeshy


yman ~ssing

upied le facshy




~ en the





43




INGRAM


Implications




Notes


AD 1275


44






Ition and

rfare is on nocshy


ions

terns This




being

have ~s beshy


l1ation les ocshy

Ii1 flict ( iated

been a rather

)g tion

O

Il ion gth of





























M Turner Tucson





45

INGRAlvl lrna


























46


~et

by 60shy

ity ner shyV

~o-

blo opshy

el he of

leal

cd ~ o

n

Ii al tted by chool





















47

INGRAM







Kruse Melissa






LeBlanc Steven A









Lee Everett S





Lipe William D



Longacre William A



94-102

48







Miller Robert Rush


Minnis Paul E








accessed july 2006





2010

Orcutt janet D







Karlstrom





ies Inshy

shy

dor


Gis

11

In

Iay

I

en t

icxshy

of

u ler

v

i in

rge Uni-

























49

INGRAM


January 2005































24-35middot









50


ivershy

)nic

mtshy

e H iley

A nter

Itoric ito ric

st

Dxand poshy

a State

Hill

5e

r for In file


ilion est

ited

~ ol of

Reshyliversity







51


and l can ocial ll)

riods rease

ptive into


middotffecshy

Lipe

area

Inual

shed nter-

Ige as


n the [cent

~es in thus

ra tes )atashy

2007 - the

Ilpreshy


datashy


oms




















27





















INGRAM




28






20 con- cshy

g (eg 1sect 15

0 1975 (3 10

~et al D- 5





=amshyif)

ill 25i1 has L

U c 20 C

is an lated 0 15

2989) 10a gion

(3

~ 5 D-Jurce

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985






29





INGRAM

() ltJ) c (J 20

~

C 0 15

~ 6 10 (3 ltJ)

Q 5





() 30 Q)

lt 25(J

S C 20 0

2 15 6 0 10 ~ a

5

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 -

-








30


he

(ation ondishy




Perry

many




31




1250 to 1299

1300 101349

Depopulation





ltf) (j) 20


D- 4 1200 1210 1220 1230 1240 1250 1260 1270 1280 1290 1300 1310 1320 1330 1340 1350










33

INGRAM

if)

20Q) L ()

f 16 C Q sect

12

0 u 8 Q)

0 4

1200 1210 1220 1230 1240 1250 1260 1270 1280 1290 1300 1310 1320 1330 1340 1350








Arizona 4 187


Arizona 2 146

Arizona 7 142

Arizona 6 98

Arizona 1 96

Arizona 5 47


Center (2009)



34




I


0

led by or reshy





1siders -ondishy



35

2









Agua Fria 156 6355 427 07 223 1937 30 52

Canyon Diablo 146 3098 569 18 81 1140 37 39

Carrizo 187 1786 505 28 67 555 31 60

Chevelon Canyon 146 2219 219 10 146 350 16 91

Chinle 146 10565 2700 26 56 175 02 730

Corn-Oraibi 146 2236 1900 85 17 1200 54 27

Cottonwood Wash 146 4 140 666 16 91 765 18 81

Dinnebito Wash 146 1927 110 06 243

Jeddito Wash 146 2734 2775 102 14 3175 16 13

Leroux Wash 146 2103 1335 63 23



Lower Puerco 146 2829 1085 38 38 875 31 47


Lower San Juan 146 6214 682 11 133

Lower Verde 156 5019 1764 35 45 3318 66 24


Moenkopi Wash 146 6776 785 12 122

Polacca Wash 146 2780 2925 105 14 2400 86 17

Silver 146 2440 1222 50 29 1010 41 36

Tonto 187 2694 2221 82 23 1444 54 35


Upper Salt 187 5612 3701 66 28 4922 88 21

Upper Verde 156 6372 1 115 17 92 1667 26 60

White 187 1703 430 25 75 800 47 40



(f) (J)

s 20 () c 16 c-Q 12 sect 0 8 (3

2 4 (L

1200 1225 1250 1275 1300 1325 1350 1375 1400 1425 1450 Wet period










37

INGRAM









38


)99 I In

15) les

mal set-



rdell rudy ider

ases

hese and sses [Tom

uce tfalls ccushy

here Iand

~ surshyj Ig in (eg



nts in nsive







39





INGRAM




40


2500

en Qj Qi 2000 E c

1 1500 OJ middotm I

1000 I

0 20000 40 000 60000 80000

Distance in meters


1400 1 1300

~

ill Q)

1200 E c 1100


800 0 10000 20000 30000

Distance in meters


1300

~ 1200 Q)

ill 1100E c 1000


sum 700 may I


0 5000 10000 15000

Distance in meters


INGRAM







42


pitashyiikely mers

~ proshyeriod push

nents ed in

I shift ~haeshy


yman ~ssing

upied le facshy




~ en the





43




INGRAM


Implications




Notes


AD 1275


44






Ition and

rfare is on nocshy


ions

terns This




being

have ~s beshy


l1ation les ocshy

Ii1 flict ( iated

been a rather

)g tion

O

Il ion gth of





























M Turner Tucson





45

INGRAlvl lrna


























46


~et

by 60shy

ity ner shyV

~o-

blo opshy

el he of

leal

cd ~ o

n

Ii al tted by chool





















47

INGRAM







Kruse Melissa






LeBlanc Steven A









Lee Everett S





Lipe William D



Longacre William A



94-102

48







Miller Robert Rush


Minnis Paul E








accessed july 2006





2010

Orcutt janet D







Karlstrom





ies Inshy

shy

dor


Gis

11

In

Iay

I

en t

icxshy

of

u ler

v

i in

rge Uni-

























49

INGRAM


January 2005































24-35middot









50


ivershy

)nic

mtshy

e H iley

A nter

Itoric ito ric

st

Dxand poshy

a State

Hill

5e

r for In file


ilion est

ited

~ ol of

Reshyliversity







51

INGRAM




28






20 con- cshy

g (eg 1sect 15

0 1975 (3 10

~et al D- 5





=amshyif)

ill 25i1 has L

U c 20 C

is an lated 0 15

2989) 10a gion

(3

~ 5 D-Jurce

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985






29





INGRAM

() ltJ) c (J 20

~

C 0 15

~ 6 10 (3 ltJ)

Q 5





() 30 Q)

lt 25(J

S C 20 0

2 15 6 0 10 ~ a

5

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 -

-








30


he

(ation ondishy




Perry

many




31




1250 to 1299

1300 101349

Depopulation





ltf) (j) 20


D- 4 1200 1210 1220 1230 1240 1250 1260 1270 1280 1290 1300 1310 1320 1330 1340 1350










33

INGRAM

if)

20Q) L ()

f 16 C Q sect

12

0 u 8 Q)

0 4

1200 1210 1220 1230 1240 1250 1260 1270 1280 1290 1300 1310 1320 1330 1340 1350








Arizona 4 187


Arizona 2 146

Arizona 7 142

Arizona 6 98

Arizona 1 96

Arizona 5 47


Center (2009)



34




I


0

led by or reshy





1siders -ondishy



35

2









Agua Fria 156 6355 427 07 223 1937 30 52

Canyon Diablo 146 3098 569 18 81 1140 37 39

Carrizo 187 1786 505 28 67 555 31 60

Chevelon Canyon 146 2219 219 10 146 350 16 91

Chinle 146 10565 2700 26 56 175 02 730

Corn-Oraibi 146 2236 1900 85 17 1200 54 27

Cottonwood Wash 146 4 140 666 16 91 765 18 81

Dinnebito Wash 146 1927 110 06 243

Jeddito Wash 146 2734 2775 102 14 3175 16 13

Leroux Wash 146 2103 1335 63 23



Lower Puerco 146 2829 1085 38 38 875 31 47


Lower San Juan 146 6214 682 11 133

Lower Verde 156 5019 1764 35 45 3318 66 24


Moenkopi Wash 146 6776 785 12 122

Polacca Wash 146 2780 2925 105 14 2400 86 17

Silver 146 2440 1222 50 29 1010 41 36

Tonto 187 2694 2221 82 23 1444 54 35


Upper Salt 187 5612 3701 66 28 4922 88 21

Upper Verde 156 6372 1 115 17 92 1667 26 60

White 187 1703 430 25 75 800 47 40



(f) (J)

s 20 () c 16 c-Q 12 sect 0 8 (3

2 4 (L

1200 1225 1250 1275 1300 1325 1350 1375 1400 1425 1450 Wet period










37

INGRAM









38


)99 I In

15) les

mal set-



rdell rudy ider

ases

hese and sses [Tom

uce tfalls ccushy

here Iand

~ surshyj Ig in (eg



nts in nsive







39





INGRAM




40


2500

en Qj Qi 2000 E c

1 1500 OJ middotm I

1000 I

0 20000 40 000 60000 80000

Distance in meters


1400 1 1300

~

ill Q)

1200 E c 1100


800 0 10000 20000 30000

Distance in meters


1300

~ 1200 Q)

ill 1100E c 1000


sum 700 may I


0 5000 10000 15000

Distance in meters


INGRAM







42


pitashyiikely mers

~ proshyeriod push

nents ed in

I shift ~haeshy


yman ~ssing

upied le facshy




~ en the





43




INGRAM


Implications




Notes


AD 1275


44






Ition and

rfare is on nocshy


ions

terns This




being

have ~s beshy


l1ation les ocshy

Ii1 flict ( iated

been a rather

)g tion

O

Il ion gth of





























M Turner Tucson





45

INGRAlvl lrna


























46


~et

by 60shy

ity ner shyV

~o-

blo opshy

el he of

leal

cd ~ o

n

Ii al tted by chool





















47

INGRAM







Kruse Melissa






LeBlanc Steven A









Lee Everett S





Lipe William D



Longacre William A



94-102

48







Miller Robert Rush


Minnis Paul E








accessed july 2006





2010

Orcutt janet D







Karlstrom





ies Inshy

shy

dor


Gis

11

In

Iay

I

en t

icxshy

of

u ler

v

i in

rge Uni-

























49

INGRAM


January 2005































24-35middot









50


ivershy

)nic

mtshy

e H iley

A nter

Itoric ito ric

st

Dxand poshy

a State

Hill

5e

r for In file


ilion est

ited

~ ol of

Reshyliversity







51



20 con- cshy

g (eg 1sect 15

0 1975 (3 10

~et al D- 5





=amshyif)

ill 25i1 has L

U c 20 C

is an lated 0 15

2989) 10a gion

(3

~ 5 D-Jurce

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985






29





INGRAM

() ltJ) c (J 20

~

C 0 15

~ 6 10 (3 ltJ)

Q 5





() 30 Q)

lt 25(J

S C 20 0

2 15 6 0 10 ~ a

5

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 -

-








30


he

(ation ondishy




Perry

many




31




1250 to 1299

1300 101349

Depopulation





ltf) (j) 20


D- 4 1200 1210 1220 1230 1240 1250 1260 1270 1280 1290 1300 1310 1320 1330 1340 1350










33

INGRAM

if)

20Q) L ()

f 16 C Q sect

12

0 u 8 Q)

0 4

1200 1210 1220 1230 1240 1250 1260 1270 1280 1290 1300 1310 1320 1330 1340 1350








Arizona 4 187


Arizona 2 146

Arizona 7 142

Arizona 6 98

Arizona 1 96

Arizona 5 47


Center (2009)



34




I


0

led by or reshy





1siders -ondishy



35

2









Agua Fria 156 6355 427 07 223 1937 30 52

Canyon Diablo 146 3098 569 18 81 1140 37 39

Carrizo 187 1786 505 28 67 555 31 60

Chevelon Canyon 146 2219 219 10 146 350 16 91

Chinle 146 10565 2700 26 56 175 02 730

Corn-Oraibi 146 2236 1900 85 17 1200 54 27

Cottonwood Wash 146 4 140 666 16 91 765 18 81

Dinnebito Wash 146 1927 110 06 243

Jeddito Wash 146 2734 2775 102 14 3175 16 13

Leroux Wash 146 2103 1335 63 23



Lower Puerco 146 2829 1085 38 38 875 31 47


Lower San Juan 146 6214 682 11 133

Lower Verde 156 5019 1764 35 45 3318 66 24


Moenkopi Wash 146 6776 785 12 122

Polacca Wash 146 2780 2925 105 14 2400 86 17

Silver 146 2440 1222 50 29 1010 41 36

Tonto 187 2694 2221 82 23 1444 54 35


Upper Salt 187 5612 3701 66 28 4922 88 21

Upper Verde 156 6372 1 115 17 92 1667 26 60

White 187 1703 430 25 75 800 47 40



(f) (J)

s 20 () c 16 c-Q 12 sect 0 8 (3

2 4 (L

1200 1225 1250 1275 1300 1325 1350 1375 1400 1425 1450 Wet period










37

INGRAM









38


)99 I In

15) les

mal set-



rdell rudy ider

ases

hese and sses [Tom

uce tfalls ccushy

here Iand

~ surshyj Ig in (eg



nts in nsive







39





INGRAM




40


2500

en Qj Qi 2000 E c

1 1500 OJ middotm I

1000 I

0 20000 40 000 60000 80000

Distance in meters


1400 1 1300

~

ill Q)

1200 E c 1100


800 0 10000 20000 30000

Distance in meters


1300

~ 1200 Q)

ill 1100E c 1000


sum 700 may I


0 5000 10000 15000

Distance in meters


INGRAM







42


pitashyiikely mers

~ proshyeriod push

nents ed in

I shift ~haeshy


yman ~ssing

upied le facshy




~ en the





43




INGRAM


Implications




Notes


AD 1275


44






Ition and

rfare is on nocshy


ions

terns This




being

have ~s beshy


l1ation les ocshy

Ii1 flict ( iated

been a rather

)g tion

O

Il ion gth of





























M Turner Tucson





45

INGRAlvl lrna


























46


~et

by 60shy

ity ner shyV

~o-

blo opshy

el he of

leal

cd ~ o

n

Ii al tted by chool





















47

INGRAM







Kruse Melissa






LeBlanc Steven A









Lee Everett S





Lipe William D



Longacre William A



94-102

48







Miller Robert Rush


Minnis Paul E








accessed july 2006





2010

Orcutt janet D







Karlstrom





ies Inshy

shy

dor


Gis

11

In

Iay

I

en t

icxshy

of

u ler

v

i in

rge Uni-

























49

INGRAM


January 2005































24-35middot









50


ivershy

)nic

mtshy

e H iley

A nter

Itoric ito ric

st

Dxand poshy

a State

Hill

5e

r for In file


ilion est

ited

~ ol of

Reshyliversity







51

INGRAM

() ltJ) c (J 20

~

C 0 15

~ 6 10 (3 ltJ)

Q 5





() 30 Q)

lt 25(J

S C 20 0

2 15 6 0 10 ~ a

5

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 -

-








30


he

(ation ondishy




Perry

many




31




1250 to 1299

1300 101349

Depopulation





ltf) (j) 20


D- 4 1200 1210 1220 1230 1240 1250 1260 1270 1280 1290 1300 1310 1320 1330 1340 1350










33

INGRAM

if)

20Q) L ()

f 16 C Q sect

12

0 u 8 Q)

0 4

1200 1210 1220 1230 1240 1250 1260 1270 1280 1290 1300 1310 1320 1330 1340 1350








Arizona 4 187


Arizona 2 146

Arizona 7 142

Arizona 6 98

Arizona 1 96

Arizona 5 47


Center (2009)



34




I


0

led by or reshy





1siders -ondishy



35

2









Agua Fria 156 6355 427 07 223 1937 30 52

Canyon Diablo 146 3098 569 18 81 1140 37 39

Carrizo 187 1786 505 28 67 555 31 60

Chevelon Canyon 146 2219 219 10 146 350 16 91

Chinle 146 10565 2700 26 56 175 02 730

Corn-Oraibi 146 2236 1900 85 17 1200 54 27

Cottonwood Wash 146 4 140 666 16 91 765 18 81

Dinnebito Wash 146 1927 110 06 243

Jeddito Wash 146 2734 2775 102 14 3175 16 13

Leroux Wash 146 2103 1335 63 23



Lower Puerco 146 2829 1085 38 38 875 31 47


Lower San Juan 146 6214 682 11 133

Lower Verde 156 5019 1764 35 45 3318 66 24


Moenkopi Wash 146 6776 785 12 122

Polacca Wash 146 2780 2925 105 14 2400 86 17

Silver 146 2440 1222 50 29 1010 41 36

Tonto 187 2694 2221 82 23 1444 54 35


Upper Salt 187 5612 3701 66 28 4922 88 21

Upper Verde 156 6372 1 115 17 92 1667 26 60

White 187 1703 430 25 75 800 47 40



(f) (J)

s 20 () c 16 c-Q 12 sect 0 8 (3

2 4 (L

1200 1225 1250 1275 1300 1325 1350 1375 1400 1425 1450 Wet period










37

INGRAM









38


)99 I In

15) les

mal set-



rdell rudy ider

ases

hese and sses [Tom

uce tfalls ccushy

here Iand

~ surshyj Ig in (eg



nts in nsive







39





INGRAM




40


2500

en Qj Qi 2000 E c

1 1500 OJ middotm I

1000 I

0 20000 40 000 60000 80000

Distance in meters


1400 1 1300

~

ill Q)

1200 E c 1100


800 0 10000 20000 30000

Distance in meters


1300

~ 1200 Q)

ill 1100E c 1000


sum 700 may I


0 5000 10000 15000

Distance in meters


INGRAM







42


pitashyiikely mers

~ proshyeriod push

nents ed in

I shift ~haeshy


yman ~ssing

upied le facshy




~ en the





43




INGRAM


Implications




Notes


AD 1275


44






Ition and

rfare is on nocshy


ions

terns This




being

have ~s beshy


l1ation les ocshy

Ii1 flict ( iated

been a rather

)g tion

O

Il ion gth of





























M Turner Tucson





45

INGRAlvl lrna


























46


~et

by 60shy

ity ner shyV

~o-

blo opshy

el he of

leal

cd ~ o

n

Ii al tted by chool





















47

INGRAM







Kruse Melissa






LeBlanc Steven A









Lee Everett S





Lipe William D



Longacre William A



94-102

48







Miller Robert Rush


Minnis Paul E








accessed july 2006





2010

Orcutt janet D







Karlstrom





ies Inshy

shy

dor


Gis

11

In

Iay

I

en t

icxshy

of

u ler

v

i in

rge Uni-

























49

INGRAM


January 2005































24-35middot









50


ivershy

)nic

mtshy

e H iley

A nter

Itoric ito ric

st

Dxand poshy

a State

Hill

5e

r for In file


ilion est

ited

~ ol of

Reshyliversity







51


he

(ation ondishy




Perry

many




31




1250 to 1299

1300 101349

Depopulation





ltf) (j) 20


D- 4 1200 1210 1220 1230 1240 1250 1260 1270 1280 1290 1300 1310 1320 1330 1340 1350










33

INGRAM

if)

20Q) L ()

f 16 C Q sect

12

0 u 8 Q)

0 4

1200 1210 1220 1230 1240 1250 1260 1270 1280 1290 1300 1310 1320 1330 1340 1350








Arizona 4 187


Arizona 2 146

Arizona 7 142

Arizona 6 98

Arizona 1 96

Arizona 5 47


Center (2009)



34




I


0

led by or reshy





1siders -ondishy



35

2









Agua Fria 156 6355 427 07 223 1937 30 52

Canyon Diablo 146 3098 569 18 81 1140 37 39

Carrizo 187 1786 505 28 67 555 31 60

Chevelon Canyon 146 2219 219 10 146 350 16 91

Chinle 146 10565 2700 26 56 175 02 730

Corn-Oraibi 146 2236 1900 85 17 1200 54 27

Cottonwood Wash 146 4 140 666 16 91 765 18 81

Dinnebito Wash 146 1927 110 06 243

Jeddito Wash 146 2734 2775 102 14 3175 16 13

Leroux Wash 146 2103 1335 63 23



Lower Puerco 146 2829 1085 38 38 875 31 47


Lower San Juan 146 6214 682 11 133

Lower Verde 156 5019 1764 35 45 3318 66 24


Moenkopi Wash 146 6776 785 12 122

Polacca Wash 146 2780 2925 105 14 2400 86 17

Silver 146 2440 1222 50 29 1010 41 36

Tonto 187 2694 2221 82 23 1444 54 35


Upper Salt 187 5612 3701 66 28 4922 88 21

Upper Verde 156 6372 1 115 17 92 1667 26 60

White 187 1703 430 25 75 800 47 40



(f) (J)

s 20 () c 16 c-Q 12 sect 0 8 (3

2 4 (L

1200 1225 1250 1275 1300 1325 1350 1375 1400 1425 1450 Wet period










37

INGRAM









38


)99 I In

15) les

mal set-



rdell rudy ider

ases

hese and sses [Tom

uce tfalls ccushy

here Iand

~ surshyj Ig in (eg



nts in nsive







39





INGRAM




40


2500

en Qj Qi 2000 E c

1 1500 OJ middotm I

1000 I

0 20000 40 000 60000 80000

Distance in meters


1400 1 1300

~

ill Q)

1200 E c 1100


800 0 10000 20000 30000

Distance in meters


1300

~ 1200 Q)

ill 1100E c 1000


sum 700 may I


0 5000 10000 15000

Distance in meters


INGRAM







42


pitashyiikely mers

~ proshyeriod push

nents ed in

I shift ~haeshy


yman ~ssing

upied le facshy




~ en the





43




INGRAM


Implications




Notes


AD 1275


44






Ition and

rfare is on nocshy


ions

terns This




being

have ~s beshy


l1ation les ocshy

Ii1 flict ( iated

been a rather

)g tion

O

Il ion gth of





























M Turner Tucson





45

INGRAlvl lrna


























46


~et

by 60shy

ity ner shyV

~o-

blo opshy

el he of

leal

cd ~ o

n

Ii al tted by chool





















47

INGRAM







Kruse Melissa






LeBlanc Steven A









Lee Everett S





Lipe William D



Longacre William A



94-102

48







Miller Robert Rush


Minnis Paul E








accessed july 2006





2010

Orcutt janet D







Karlstrom





ies Inshy

shy

dor


Gis

11

In

Iay

I

en t

icxshy

of

u ler

v

i in

rge Uni-

























49

INGRAM


January 2005































24-35middot









50


ivershy

)nic

mtshy

e H iley

A nter

Itoric ito ric

st

Dxand poshy

a State

Hill

5e

r for In file


ilion est

ited

~ ol of

Reshyliversity







51

1250 to 1299

1300 101349

Depopulation





ltf) (j) 20


D- 4 1200 1210 1220 1230 1240 1250 1260 1270 1280 1290 1300 1310 1320 1330 1340 1350










33

INGRAM

if)

20Q) L ()

f 16 C Q sect

12

0 u 8 Q)

0 4

1200 1210 1220 1230 1240 1250 1260 1270 1280 1290 1300 1310 1320 1330 1340 1350








Arizona 4 187


Arizona 2 146

Arizona 7 142

Arizona 6 98

Arizona 1 96

Arizona 5 47


Center (2009)



34




I


0

led by or reshy





1siders -ondishy



35

2









Agua Fria 156 6355 427 07 223 1937 30 52

Canyon Diablo 146 3098 569 18 81 1140 37 39

Carrizo 187 1786 505 28 67 555 31 60

Chevelon Canyon 146 2219 219 10 146 350 16 91

Chinle 146 10565 2700 26 56 175 02 730

Corn-Oraibi 146 2236 1900 85 17 1200 54 27

Cottonwood Wash 146 4 140 666 16 91 765 18 81

Dinnebito Wash 146 1927 110 06 243

Jeddito Wash 146 2734 2775 102 14 3175 16 13

Leroux Wash 146 2103 1335 63 23



Lower Puerco 146 2829 1085 38 38 875 31 47


Lower San Juan 146 6214 682 11 133

Lower Verde 156 5019 1764 35 45 3318 66 24


Moenkopi Wash 146 6776 785 12 122

Polacca Wash 146 2780 2925 105 14 2400 86 17

Silver 146 2440 1222 50 29 1010 41 36

Tonto 187 2694 2221 82 23 1444 54 35


Upper Salt 187 5612 3701 66 28 4922 88 21

Upper Verde 156 6372 1 115 17 92 1667 26 60

White 187 1703 430 25 75 800 47 40



(f) (J)

s 20 () c 16 c-Q 12 sect 0 8 (3

2 4 (L

1200 1225 1250 1275 1300 1325 1350 1375 1400 1425 1450 Wet period










37

INGRAM









38


)99 I In

15) les

mal set-



rdell rudy ider

ases

hese and sses [Tom

uce tfalls ccushy

here Iand

~ surshyj Ig in (eg



nts in nsive







39





INGRAM




40


2500

en Qj Qi 2000 E c

1 1500 OJ middotm I

1000 I

0 20000 40 000 60000 80000

Distance in meters


1400 1 1300

~

ill Q)

1200 E c 1100


800 0 10000 20000 30000

Distance in meters


1300

~ 1200 Q)

ill 1100E c 1000


sum 700 may I


0 5000 10000 15000

Distance in meters


INGRAM







42


pitashyiikely mers

~ proshyeriod push

nents ed in

I shift ~haeshy


yman ~ssing

upied le facshy




~ en the





43




INGRAM


Implications




Notes


AD 1275


44






Ition and

rfare is on nocshy


ions

terns This




being

have ~s beshy


l1ation les ocshy

Ii1 flict ( iated

been a rather

)g tion

O

Il ion gth of





























M Turner Tucson





45

INGRAlvl lrna


























46


~et

by 60shy

ity ner shyV

~o-

blo opshy

el he of

leal

cd ~ o

n

Ii al tted by chool





















47

INGRAM







Kruse Melissa






LeBlanc Steven A









Lee Everett S





Lipe William D



Longacre William A



94-102

48







Miller Robert Rush


Minnis Paul E








accessed july 2006





2010

Orcutt janet D







Karlstrom





ies Inshy

shy

dor


Gis

11

In

Iay

I

en t

icxshy

of

u ler

v

i in

rge Uni-

























49

INGRAM


January 2005































24-35middot









50


ivershy

)nic

mtshy

e H iley

A nter

Itoric ito ric

st

Dxand poshy

a State

Hill

5e

r for In file


ilion est

ited

~ ol of

Reshyliversity







51


ltf) (j) 20


D- 4 1200 1210 1220 1230 1240 1250 1260 1270 1280 1290 1300 1310 1320 1330 1340 1350










33

INGRAM

if)

20Q) L ()

f 16 C Q sect

12

0 u 8 Q)

0 4

1200 1210 1220 1230 1240 1250 1260 1270 1280 1290 1300 1310 1320 1330 1340 1350








Arizona 4 187


Arizona 2 146

Arizona 7 142

Arizona 6 98

Arizona 1 96

Arizona 5 47


Center (2009)



34




I


0

led by or reshy





1siders -ondishy



35

2









Agua Fria 156 6355 427 07 223 1937 30 52

Canyon Diablo 146 3098 569 18 81 1140 37 39

Carrizo 187 1786 505 28 67 555 31 60

Chevelon Canyon 146 2219 219 10 146 350 16 91

Chinle 146 10565 2700 26 56 175 02 730

Corn-Oraibi 146 2236 1900 85 17 1200 54 27

Cottonwood Wash 146 4 140 666 16 91 765 18 81

Dinnebito Wash 146 1927 110 06 243

Jeddito Wash 146 2734 2775 102 14 3175 16 13

Leroux Wash 146 2103 1335 63 23



Lower Puerco 146 2829 1085 38 38 875 31 47


Lower San Juan 146 6214 682 11 133

Lower Verde 156 5019 1764 35 45 3318 66 24


Moenkopi Wash 146 6776 785 12 122

Polacca Wash 146 2780 2925 105 14 2400 86 17

Silver 146 2440 1222 50 29 1010 41 36

Tonto 187 2694 2221 82 23 1444 54 35


Upper Salt 187 5612 3701 66 28 4922 88 21

Upper Verde 156 6372 1 115 17 92 1667 26 60

White 187 1703 430 25 75 800 47 40



(f) (J)

s 20 () c 16 c-Q 12 sect 0 8 (3

2 4 (L

1200 1225 1250 1275 1300 1325 1350 1375 1400 1425 1450 Wet period










37

INGRAM









38


)99 I In

15) les

mal set-



rdell rudy ider

ases

hese and sses [Tom

uce tfalls ccushy

here Iand

~ surshyj Ig in (eg



nts in nsive







39





INGRAM




40


2500

en Qj Qi 2000 E c

1 1500 OJ middotm I

1000 I

0 20000 40 000 60000 80000

Distance in meters


1400 1 1300

~

ill Q)

1200 E c 1100


800 0 10000 20000 30000

Distance in meters


1300

~ 1200 Q)

ill 1100E c 1000


sum 700 may I


0 5000 10000 15000

Distance in meters


INGRAM







42


pitashyiikely mers

~ proshyeriod push

nents ed in

I shift ~haeshy


yman ~ssing

upied le facshy




~ en the





43




INGRAM


Implications




Notes


AD 1275


44






Ition and

rfare is on nocshy


ions

terns This




being

have ~s beshy


l1ation les ocshy

Ii1 flict ( iated

been a rather

)g tion

O

Il ion gth of





























M Turner Tucson





45

INGRAlvl lrna


























46


~et

by 60shy

ity ner shyV

~o-

blo opshy

el he of

leal

cd ~ o

n

Ii al tted by chool





















47

INGRAM







Kruse Melissa






LeBlanc Steven A









Lee Everett S





Lipe William D



Longacre William A



94-102

48







Miller Robert Rush


Minnis Paul E








accessed july 2006





2010

Orcutt janet D







Karlstrom





ies Inshy

shy

dor


Gis

11

In

Iay

I

en t

icxshy

of

u ler

v

i in

rge Uni-

























49

INGRAM


January 2005































24-35middot









50


ivershy

)nic

mtshy

e H iley

A nter

Itoric ito ric

st

Dxand poshy

a State

Hill

5e

r for In file


ilion est

ited

~ ol of

Reshyliversity







51

INGRAM

if)

20Q) L ()

f 16 C Q sect

12

0 u 8 Q)

0 4

1200 1210 1220 1230 1240 1250 1260 1270 1280 1290 1300 1310 1320 1330 1340 1350








Arizona 4 187


Arizona 2 146

Arizona 7 142

Arizona 6 98

Arizona 1 96

Arizona 5 47


Center (2009)



34




I


0

led by or reshy





1siders -ondishy



35

2









Agua Fria 156 6355 427 07 223 1937 30 52

Canyon Diablo 146 3098 569 18 81 1140 37 39

Carrizo 187 1786 505 28 67 555 31 60

Chevelon Canyon 146 2219 219 10 146 350 16 91

Chinle 146 10565 2700 26 56 175 02 730

Corn-Oraibi 146 2236 1900 85 17 1200 54 27

Cottonwood Wash 146 4 140 666 16 91 765 18 81

Dinnebito Wash 146 1927 110 06 243

Jeddito Wash 146 2734 2775 102 14 3175 16 13

Leroux Wash 146 2103 1335 63 23



Lower Puerco 146 2829 1085 38 38 875 31 47


Lower San Juan 146 6214 682 11 133

Lower Verde 156 5019 1764 35 45 3318 66 24


Moenkopi Wash 146 6776 785 12 122

Polacca Wash 146 2780 2925 105 14 2400 86 17

Silver 146 2440 1222 50 29 1010 41 36

Tonto 187 2694 2221 82 23 1444 54 35


Upper Salt 187 5612 3701 66 28 4922 88 21

Upper Verde 156 6372 1 115 17 92 1667 26 60

White 187 1703 430 25 75 800 47 40



(f) (J)

s 20 () c 16 c-Q 12 sect 0 8 (3

2 4 (L

1200 1225 1250 1275 1300 1325 1350 1375 1400 1425 1450 Wet period










37

INGRAM









38


)99 I In

15) les

mal set-



rdell rudy ider

ases

hese and sses [Tom

uce tfalls ccushy

here Iand

~ surshyj Ig in (eg



nts in nsive







39





INGRAM




40


2500

en Qj Qi 2000 E c

1 1500 OJ middotm I

1000 I

0 20000 40 000 60000 80000

Distance in meters


1400 1 1300

~

ill Q)

1200 E c 1100


800 0 10000 20000 30000

Distance in meters


1300

~ 1200 Q)

ill 1100E c 1000


sum 700 may I


0 5000 10000 15000

Distance in meters


INGRAM







42


pitashyiikely mers

~ proshyeriod push

nents ed in

I shift ~haeshy


yman ~ssing

upied le facshy




~ en the





43




INGRAM


Implications




Notes


AD 1275


44






Ition and

rfare is on nocshy


ions

terns This




being

have ~s beshy


l1ation les ocshy

Ii1 flict ( iated

been a rather

)g tion

O

Il ion gth of





























M Turner Tucson





45

INGRAlvl lrna


























46


~et

by 60shy

ity ner shyV

~o-

blo opshy

el he of

leal

cd ~ o

n

Ii al tted by chool





















47

INGRAM







Kruse Melissa






LeBlanc Steven A









Lee Everett S





Lipe William D



Longacre William A



94-102

48







Miller Robert Rush


Minnis Paul E








accessed july 2006





2010

Orcutt janet D







Karlstrom





ies Inshy

shy

dor


Gis

11

In

Iay

I

en t

icxshy

of

u ler

v

i in

rge Uni-

























49

INGRAM


January 2005































24-35middot









50


ivershy

)nic

mtshy

e H iley

A nter

Itoric ito ric

st

Dxand poshy

a State

Hill

5e

r for In file


ilion est

ited

~ ol of

Reshyliversity







51

I


0

led by or reshy





1siders -ondishy



35

2









Agua Fria 156 6355 427 07 223 1937 30 52

Canyon Diablo 146 3098 569 18 81 1140 37 39

Carrizo 187 1786 505 28 67 555 31 60

Chevelon Canyon 146 2219 219 10 146 350 16 91

Chinle 146 10565 2700 26 56 175 02 730

Corn-Oraibi 146 2236 1900 85 17 1200 54 27

Cottonwood Wash 146 4 140 666 16 91 765 18 81

Dinnebito Wash 146 1927 110 06 243

Jeddito Wash 146 2734 2775 102 14 3175 16 13

Leroux Wash 146 2103 1335 63 23



Lower Puerco 146 2829 1085 38 38 875 31 47


Lower San Juan 146 6214 682 11 133

Lower Verde 156 5019 1764 35 45 3318 66 24


Moenkopi Wash 146 6776 785 12 122

Polacca Wash 146 2780 2925 105 14 2400 86 17

Silver 146 2440 1222 50 29 1010 41 36

Tonto 187 2694 2221 82 23 1444 54 35


Upper Salt 187 5612 3701 66 28 4922 88 21

Upper Verde 156 6372 1 115 17 92 1667 26 60

White 187 1703 430 25 75 800 47 40



(f) (J)

s 20 () c 16 c-Q 12 sect 0 8 (3

2 4 (L

1200 1225 1250 1275 1300 1325 1350 1375 1400 1425 1450 Wet period










37

INGRAM









38


)99 I In

15) les

mal set-



rdell rudy ider

ases

hese and sses [Tom

uce tfalls ccushy

here Iand

~ surshyj Ig in (eg



nts in nsive







39





INGRAM




40


2500

en Qj Qi 2000 E c

1 1500 OJ middotm I

1000 I

0 20000 40 000 60000 80000

Distance in meters


1400 1 1300

~

ill Q)

1200 E c 1100


800 0 10000 20000 30000

Distance in meters


1300

~ 1200 Q)

ill 1100E c 1000


sum 700 may I


0 5000 10000 15000

Distance in meters


INGRAM







42


pitashyiikely mers

~ proshyeriod push

nents ed in

I shift ~haeshy


yman ~ssing

upied le facshy




~ en the





43




INGRAM


Implications




Notes


AD 1275


44






Ition and

rfare is on nocshy


ions

terns This




being

have ~s beshy


l1ation les ocshy

Ii1 flict ( iated

been a rather

)g tion

O

Il ion gth of





























M Turner Tucson





45

INGRAlvl lrna


























46


~et

by 60shy

ity ner shyV

~o-

blo opshy

el he of

leal

cd ~ o

n

Ii al tted by chool





















47

INGRAM







Kruse Melissa






LeBlanc Steven A









Lee Everett S





Lipe William D



Longacre William A



94-102

48







Miller Robert Rush


Minnis Paul E








accessed july 2006





2010

Orcutt janet D







Karlstrom





ies Inshy

shy

dor


Gis

11

In

Iay

I

en t

icxshy

of

u ler

v

i in

rge Uni-

























49

INGRAM


January 2005































24-35middot









50


ivershy

)nic

mtshy

e H iley

A nter

Itoric ito ric

st

Dxand poshy

a State

Hill

5e

r for In file


ilion est

ited

~ ol of

Reshyliversity







51




Agua Fria 156 6355 427 07 223 1937 30 52

Canyon Diablo 146 3098 569 18 81 1140 37 39

Carrizo 187 1786 505 28 67 555 31 60

Chevelon Canyon 146 2219 219 10 146 350 16 91

Chinle 146 10565 2700 26 56 175 02 730

Corn-Oraibi 146 2236 1900 85 17 1200 54 27

Cottonwood Wash 146 4 140 666 16 91 765 18 81

Dinnebito Wash 146 1927 110 06 243

Jeddito Wash 146 2734 2775 102 14 3175 16 13

Leroux Wash 146 2103 1335 63 23



Lower Puerco 146 2829 1085 38 38 875 31 47


Lower San Juan 146 6214 682 11 133

Lower Verde 156 5019 1764 35 45 3318 66 24


Moenkopi Wash 146 6776 785 12 122

Polacca Wash 146 2780 2925 105 14 2400 86 17

Silver 146 2440 1222 50 29 1010 41 36

Tonto 187 2694 2221 82 23 1444 54 35


Upper Salt 187 5612 3701 66 28 4922 88 21

Upper Verde 156 6372 1 115 17 92 1667 26 60

White 187 1703 430 25 75 800 47 40



(f) (J)

s 20 () c 16 c-Q 12 sect 0 8 (3

2 4 (L

1200 1225 1250 1275 1300 1325 1350 1375 1400 1425 1450 Wet period










37

INGRAM









38


)99 I In

15) les

mal set-



rdell rudy ider

ases

hese and sses [Tom

uce tfalls ccushy

here Iand

~ surshyj Ig in (eg



nts in nsive







39





INGRAM




40


2500

en Qj Qi 2000 E c

1 1500 OJ middotm I

1000 I

0 20000 40 000 60000 80000

Distance in meters


1400 1 1300

~

ill Q)

1200 E c 1100


800 0 10000 20000 30000

Distance in meters


1300

~ 1200 Q)

ill 1100E c 1000


sum 700 may I


0 5000 10000 15000

Distance in meters


INGRAM







42


pitashyiikely mers

~ proshyeriod push

nents ed in

I shift ~haeshy


yman ~ssing

upied le facshy




~ en the





43




INGRAM


Implications




Notes


AD 1275


44






Ition and

rfare is on nocshy


ions

terns This




being

have ~s beshy


l1ation les ocshy

Ii1 flict ( iated

been a rather

)g tion

O

Il ion gth of





























M Turner Tucson





45

INGRAlvl lrna


























46


~et

by 60shy

ity ner shyV

~o-

blo opshy

el he of

leal

cd ~ o

n

Ii al tted by chool





















47

INGRAM







Kruse Melissa






LeBlanc Steven A









Lee Everett S





Lipe William D



Longacre William A



94-102

48







Miller Robert Rush


Minnis Paul E








accessed july 2006





2010

Orcutt janet D







Karlstrom





ies Inshy

shy

dor


Gis

11

In

Iay

I

en t

icxshy

of

u ler

v

i in

rge Uni-

























49

INGRAM


January 2005































24-35middot









50


ivershy

)nic

mtshy

e H iley

A nter

Itoric ito ric

st

Dxand poshy

a State

Hill

5e

r for In file


ilion est

ited

~ ol of

Reshyliversity







51


(f) (J)

s 20 () c 16 c-Q 12 sect 0 8 (3

2 4 (L

1200 1225 1250 1275 1300 1325 1350 1375 1400 1425 1450 Wet period










37

INGRAM









38


)99 I In

15) les

mal set-



rdell rudy ider

ases

hese and sses [Tom

uce tfalls ccushy

here Iand

~ surshyj Ig in (eg



nts in nsive







39





INGRAM




40


2500

en Qj Qi 2000 E c

1 1500 OJ middotm I

1000 I

0 20000 40 000 60000 80000

Distance in meters


1400 1 1300

~

ill Q)

1200 E c 1100


800 0 10000 20000 30000

Distance in meters


1300

~ 1200 Q)

ill 1100E c 1000


sum 700 may I


0 5000 10000 15000

Distance in meters


INGRAM







42


pitashyiikely mers

~ proshyeriod push

nents ed in

I shift ~haeshy


yman ~ssing

upied le facshy




~ en the





43




INGRAM


Implications




Notes


AD 1275


44






Ition and

rfare is on nocshy


ions

terns This




being

have ~s beshy


l1ation les ocshy

Ii1 flict ( iated

been a rather

)g tion

O

Il ion gth of





























M Turner Tucson





45

INGRAlvl lrna


























46


~et

by 60shy

ity ner shyV

~o-

blo opshy

el he of

leal

cd ~ o

n

Ii al tted by chool





















47

INGRAM







Kruse Melissa






LeBlanc Steven A









Lee Everett S





Lipe William D



Longacre William A



94-102

48







Miller Robert Rush


Minnis Paul E








accessed july 2006





2010

Orcutt janet D







Karlstrom





ies Inshy

shy

dor


Gis

11

In

Iay

I

en t

icxshy

of

u ler

v

i in

rge Uni-

























49

INGRAM


January 2005































24-35middot









50


ivershy

)nic

mtshy

e H iley

A nter

Itoric ito ric

st

Dxand poshy

a State

Hill

5e

r for In file


ilion est

ited

~ ol of

Reshyliversity







51

INGRAM









38


)99 I In

15) les

mal set-



rdell rudy ider

ases

hese and sses [Tom

uce tfalls ccushy

here Iand

~ surshyj Ig in (eg



nts in nsive







39





INGRAM




40


2500

en Qj Qi 2000 E c

1 1500 OJ middotm I

1000 I

0 20000 40 000 60000 80000

Distance in meters


1400 1 1300

~

ill Q)

1200 E c 1100


800 0 10000 20000 30000

Distance in meters


1300

~ 1200 Q)

ill 1100E c 1000


sum 700 may I


0 5000 10000 15000

Distance in meters


INGRAM







42


pitashyiikely mers

~ proshyeriod push

nents ed in

I shift ~haeshy


yman ~ssing

upied le facshy




~ en the





43




INGRAM


Implications




Notes


AD 1275


44






Ition and

rfare is on nocshy


ions

terns This




being

have ~s beshy


l1ation les ocshy

Ii1 flict ( iated

been a rather

)g tion

O

Il ion gth of





























M Turner Tucson





45

INGRAlvl lrna


























46


~et

by 60shy

ity ner shyV

~o-

blo opshy

el he of

leal

cd ~ o

n

Ii al tted by chool





















47

INGRAM







Kruse Melissa






LeBlanc Steven A









Lee Everett S





Lipe William D



Longacre William A



94-102

48







Miller Robert Rush


Minnis Paul E








accessed july 2006





2010

Orcutt janet D







Karlstrom





ies Inshy

shy

dor


Gis

11

In

Iay

I

en t

icxshy

of

u ler

v

i in

rge Uni-

























49

INGRAM


January 2005































24-35middot









50


ivershy

)nic

mtshy

e H iley

A nter

Itoric ito ric

st

Dxand poshy

a State

Hill

5e

r for In file


ilion est

ited

~ ol of

Reshyliversity







51


)99 I In

15) les

mal set-



rdell rudy ider

ases

hese and sses [Tom

uce tfalls ccushy

here Iand

~ surshyj Ig in (eg



nts in nsive







39





INGRAM




40


2500

en Qj Qi 2000 E c

1 1500 OJ middotm I

1000 I

0 20000 40 000 60000 80000

Distance in meters


1400 1 1300

~

ill Q)

1200 E c 1100


800 0 10000 20000 30000

Distance in meters


1300

~ 1200 Q)

ill 1100E c 1000


sum 700 may I


0 5000 10000 15000

Distance in meters


INGRAM







42


pitashyiikely mers

~ proshyeriod push

nents ed in

I shift ~haeshy


yman ~ssing

upied le facshy




~ en the





43




INGRAM


Implications




Notes


AD 1275


44






Ition and

rfare is on nocshy


ions

terns This




being

have ~s beshy


l1ation les ocshy

Ii1 flict ( iated

been a rather

)g tion

O

Il ion gth of





























M Turner Tucson





45

INGRAlvl lrna


























46


~et

by 60shy

ity ner shyV

~o-

blo opshy

el he of

leal

cd ~ o

n

Ii al tted by chool





















47

INGRAM







Kruse Melissa






LeBlanc Steven A









Lee Everett S





Lipe William D



Longacre William A



94-102

48







Miller Robert Rush


Minnis Paul E








accessed july 2006





2010

Orcutt janet D







Karlstrom





ies Inshy

shy

dor


Gis

11

In

Iay

I

en t

icxshy

of

u ler

v

i in

rge Uni-

























49

INGRAM


January 2005































24-35middot









50


ivershy

)nic

mtshy

e H iley

A nter

Itoric ito ric

st

Dxand poshy

a State

Hill

5e

r for In file


ilion est

ited

~ ol of

Reshyliversity







51

INGRAM




40


2500

en Qj Qi 2000 E c

1 1500 OJ middotm I

1000 I

0 20000 40 000 60000 80000

Distance in meters


1400 1 1300

~

ill Q)

1200 E c 1100


800 0 10000 20000 30000

Distance in meters


1300

~ 1200 Q)

ill 1100E c 1000


sum 700 may I


0 5000 10000 15000

Distance in meters


INGRAM







42


pitashyiikely mers

~ proshyeriod push

nents ed in

I shift ~haeshy


yman ~ssing

upied le facshy




~ en the





43




INGRAM


Implications




Notes


AD 1275


44






Ition and

rfare is on nocshy


ions

terns This




being

have ~s beshy


l1ation les ocshy

Ii1 flict ( iated

been a rather

)g tion

O

Il ion gth of





























M Turner Tucson





45

INGRAlvl lrna


























46


~et

by 60shy

ity ner shyV

~o-

blo opshy

el he of

leal

cd ~ o

n

Ii al tted by chool





















47

INGRAM







Kruse Melissa






LeBlanc Steven A









Lee Everett S





Lipe William D



Longacre William A



94-102

48







Miller Robert Rush


Minnis Paul E








accessed july 2006





2010

Orcutt janet D







Karlstrom





ies Inshy

shy

dor


Gis

11

In

Iay

I

en t

icxshy

of

u ler

v

i in

rge Uni-

























49

INGRAM


January 2005































24-35middot









50


ivershy

)nic

mtshy

e H iley

A nter

Itoric ito ric

st

Dxand poshy

a State

Hill

5e

r for In file


ilion est

ited

~ ol of

Reshyliversity







51


2500

en Qj Qi 2000 E c

1 1500 OJ middotm I

1000 I

0 20000 40 000 60000 80000

Distance in meters


1400 1 1300

~

ill Q)

1200 E c 1100


800 0 10000 20000 30000

Distance in meters


1300

~ 1200 Q)

ill 1100E c 1000


sum 700 may I


0 5000 10000 15000

Distance in meters


INGRAM







42


pitashyiikely mers

~ proshyeriod push

nents ed in

I shift ~haeshy


yman ~ssing

upied le facshy




~ en the





43




INGRAM


Implications




Notes


AD 1275


44






Ition and

rfare is on nocshy


ions

terns This




being

have ~s beshy


l1ation les ocshy

Ii1 flict ( iated

been a rather

)g tion

O

Il ion gth of





























M Turner Tucson





45

INGRAlvl lrna


























46


~et

by 60shy

ity ner shyV

~o-

blo opshy

el he of

leal

cd ~ o

n

Ii al tted by chool





















47

INGRAM







Kruse Melissa






LeBlanc Steven A









Lee Everett S





Lipe William D



Longacre William A



94-102

48







Miller Robert Rush


Minnis Paul E








accessed july 2006





2010

Orcutt janet D







Karlstrom





ies Inshy

shy

dor


Gis

11

In

Iay

I

en t

icxshy

of

u ler

v

i in

rge Uni-

























49

INGRAM


January 2005































24-35middot









50


ivershy

)nic

mtshy

e H iley

A nter

Itoric ito ric

st

Dxand poshy

a State

Hill

5e

r for In file


ilion est

ited

~ ol of

Reshyliversity







51

INGRAM







42


pitashyiikely mers

~ proshyeriod push

nents ed in

I shift ~haeshy


yman ~ssing

upied le facshy




~ en the





43




INGRAM


Implications




Notes


AD 1275


44






Ition and

rfare is on nocshy


ions

terns This




being

have ~s beshy


l1ation les ocshy

Ii1 flict ( iated

been a rather

)g tion

O

Il ion gth of





























M Turner Tucson





45

INGRAlvl lrna


























46


~et

by 60shy

ity ner shyV

~o-

blo opshy

el he of

leal

cd ~ o

n

Ii al tted by chool





















47

INGRAM







Kruse Melissa






LeBlanc Steven A









Lee Everett S





Lipe William D



Longacre William A



94-102

48







Miller Robert Rush


Minnis Paul E








accessed july 2006





2010

Orcutt janet D







Karlstrom





ies Inshy

shy

dor


Gis

11

In

Iay

I

en t

icxshy

of

u ler

v

i in

rge Uni-

























49

INGRAM


January 2005































24-35middot









50


ivershy

)nic

mtshy

e H iley

A nter

Itoric ito ric

st

Dxand poshy

a State

Hill

5e

r for In file


ilion est

ited

~ ol of

Reshyliversity







51


pitashyiikely mers

~ proshyeriod push

nents ed in

I shift ~haeshy


yman ~ssing

upied le facshy




~ en the





43




INGRAM


Implications




Notes


AD 1275


44






Ition and

rfare is on nocshy


ions

terns This




being

have ~s beshy


l1ation les ocshy

Ii1 flict ( iated

been a rather

)g tion

O

Il ion gth of





























M Turner Tucson





45

INGRAlvl lrna


























46


~et

by 60shy

ity ner shyV

~o-

blo opshy

el he of

leal

cd ~ o

n

Ii al tted by chool





















47

INGRAM







Kruse Melissa






LeBlanc Steven A









Lee Everett S





Lipe William D



Longacre William A



94-102

48







Miller Robert Rush


Minnis Paul E








accessed july 2006





2010

Orcutt janet D







Karlstrom





ies Inshy

shy

dor


Gis

11

In

Iay

I

en t

icxshy

of

u ler

v

i in

rge Uni-

























49

INGRAM


January 2005































24-35middot









50


ivershy

)nic

mtshy

e H iley

A nter

Itoric ito ric

st

Dxand poshy

a State

Hill

5e

r for In file


ilion est

ited

~ ol of

Reshyliversity







51

INGRAM


Implications




Notes


AD 1275


44






Ition and

rfare is on nocshy


ions

terns This




being

have ~s beshy


l1ation les ocshy

Ii1 flict ( iated

been a rather

)g tion

O

Il ion gth of





























M Turner Tucson





45

INGRAlvl lrna


























46


~et

by 60shy

ity ner shyV

~o-

blo opshy

el he of

leal

cd ~ o

n

Ii al tted by chool





















47

INGRAM







Kruse Melissa






LeBlanc Steven A









Lee Everett S





Lipe William D



Longacre William A



94-102

48







Miller Robert Rush


Minnis Paul E








accessed july 2006





2010

Orcutt janet D







Karlstrom





ies Inshy

shy

dor


Gis

11

In

Iay

I

en t

icxshy

of

u ler

v

i in

rge Uni-

























49

INGRAM


January 2005































24-35middot









50


ivershy

)nic

mtshy

e H iley

A nter

Itoric ito ric

st

Dxand poshy

a State

Hill

5e

r for In file


ilion est

ited

~ ol of

Reshyliversity







51


Ition and

rfare is on nocshy


ions

terns This




being

have ~s beshy


l1ation les ocshy

Ii1 flict ( iated

been a rather

)g tion

O

Il ion gth of





























M Turner Tucson





45

INGRAlvl lrna


























46


~et

by 60shy

ity ner shyV

~o-

blo opshy

el he of

leal

cd ~ o

n

Ii al tted by chool





















47

INGRAM







Kruse Melissa






LeBlanc Steven A









Lee Everett S





Lipe William D



Longacre William A



94-102

48







Miller Robert Rush


Minnis Paul E








accessed july 2006





2010

Orcutt janet D







Karlstrom





ies Inshy

shy

dor


Gis

11

In

Iay

I

en t

icxshy

of

u ler

v

i in

rge Uni-

























49

INGRAM


January 2005































24-35middot









50


ivershy

)nic

mtshy

e H iley

A nter

Itoric ito ric

st

Dxand poshy

a State

Hill

5e

r for In file


ilion est

ited

~ ol of

Reshyliversity







51

INGRAlvl lrna


























46


~et

by 60shy

ity ner shyV

~o-

blo opshy

el he of

leal

cd ~ o

n

Ii al tted by chool





















47

INGRAM







Kruse Melissa






LeBlanc Steven A









Lee Everett S





Lipe William D



Longacre William A



94-102

48







Miller Robert Rush


Minnis Paul E








accessed july 2006





2010

Orcutt janet D







Karlstrom





ies Inshy

shy

dor


Gis

11

In

Iay

I

en t

icxshy

of

u ler

v

i in

rge Uni-

























49

INGRAM


January 2005































24-35middot









50


ivershy

)nic

mtshy

e H iley

A nter

Itoric ito ric

st

Dxand poshy

a State

Hill

5e

r for In file


ilion est

ited

~ ol of

Reshyliversity







51


~et

by 60shy

ity ner shyV

~o-

blo opshy

el he of

leal

cd ~ o

n

Ii al tted by chool





















47

INGRAM







Kruse Melissa






LeBlanc Steven A









Lee Everett S





Lipe William D



Longacre William A



94-102

48







Miller Robert Rush


Minnis Paul E








accessed july 2006





2010

Orcutt janet D







Karlstrom





ies Inshy

shy

dor


Gis

11

In

Iay

I

en t

icxshy

of

u ler

v

i in

rge Uni-

























49

INGRAM


January 2005































24-35middot









50


ivershy

)nic

mtshy

e H iley

A nter

Itoric ito ric

st

Dxand poshy

a State

Hill

5e

r for In file


ilion est

ited

~ ol of

Reshyliversity







51

INGRAM







Kruse Melissa






LeBlanc Steven A









Lee Everett S





Lipe William D



Longacre William A



94-102

48







Miller Robert Rush


Minnis Paul E








accessed july 2006





2010

Orcutt janet D







Karlstrom





ies Inshy

shy

dor


Gis

11

In

Iay

I

en t

icxshy

of

u ler

v

i in

rge Uni-

























49

INGRAM


January 2005































24-35middot









50


ivershy

)nic

mtshy

e H iley

A nter

Itoric ito ric

st

Dxand poshy

a State

Hill

5e

r for In file


ilion est

ited

~ ol of

Reshyliversity







51


ies Inshy

shy

dor


Gis

11

In

Iay

I

en t

icxshy

of

u ler

v

i in

rge Uni-

























49

INGRAM


January 2005































24-35middot









50


ivershy

)nic

mtshy

e H iley

A nter

Itoric ito ric

st

Dxand poshy

a State

Hill

5e

r for In file


ilion est

ited

~ ol of

Reshyliversity







51

INGRAM


January 2005































24-35middot









50


ivershy

)nic

mtshy

e H iley

A nter

Itoric ito ric

st

Dxand poshy

a State

Hill

5e

r for In file


ilion est

ited

~ ol of

Reshyliversity







51


ivershy

)nic

mtshy

e H iley

A nter

Itoric ito ric

st

Dxand poshy

a State

Hill

5e

r for In file


ilion est

ited

~ ol of

Reshyliversity







51

edited by david r. abbott and katherine a. spielmann · david r. abbott and katherine a. spielmann...

Documents